I have long allowed off topic comments. However, after many complaints from folks who would understandably like to stay on the subject, I am providing this post as a place to comment things that are way off topic with the current post.
I’ve added a link to this post on our sidebar so people will know to post off topic comments here.
You now have the option of subscribing to posts, so you’ll be able to keep up with the comments here if you so choose. So it’s not as if your comment is being exiled to the land of forgotten comments. We’ll be paying attention, and you can stay up to date with an RSS feed.
As much as we’d like to hear about your synchronized swimming club, I ask that all comments posted here remain TSA focused and adhere to TSA’s comment policy.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
1,438 comments:
1 – 200 of 1438 Newer› Newest»Is it off topic to ask for the name and contact information of your supervisor, to complain about this and your many other unprofessional behaviors?
First?
"So it’s not as if your comment is being exiled to the land of forgotten comments. We’ll be paying attention,"
ROTFLMAO! You owe me a new keyboard!!!
So when are you going to comment on the 6 year old on the NFL and the horrendous treatment of amputees by the TSA?
Are you paying attention?
TSA must really be feeling heat about all the unanswered questions. That could be the only possible reason for this change.
You can subscribe to comments here: http://tinyurl.com/2d23ovy
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Is this your plan to avoid addressing Nature's evisceration of the BDO boondoggle? It won't work.
TSA was terrific in finding and returning my lost passport. The main phone # put me in direct contact with Detroit TSA lost & Found. Officer Tanisha had the passport and told me exactly how to arrange its return. She is polite, professional and competent. Hurray for Officer Tanisha and TSA Detroit. Thomas W. Stoever
@Anonymous - The last I checked, the issue with the 6 year old was resolved. As far as the amputee mommy post, I'm currently looking into it. It would be easier to investigate if I knew which airport the alleged incident happened at.
@Marshall's SO - Not the case at all. I posted the exact reason why I'm doing this in my blog post.
@Anonymous - I'm not avoiding the Nature article. I have several e-mails out to subject matter experts. I can't promise a blog post out of it, but I'm not ignoring it.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
@Thomas - Thanks for letting me know. I'll forward your comment to Tanisha's airport.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Thank you for doing this.
Bob said:
"The last I checked, the issue with the 6 year old was resolved."
So were/are children on the NFL, in contradiction to TSA assurances or are there problems with Secure Flight?
"As far as the amputee mommy post, I'm currently looking into it. It would be easier to investigate if I knew which airport the alleged incident happened at."
Ever think to ask the person involved? She has a blog and a website for god's sake. Apparently you aren't paying attention.
" I can't promise a blog post out of it, but I'm not ignoring it. "
Classic.... "I'm not ignoring it now, but I may later"
@Anon - I'm checking to make sure we haven't already reached out to her or she hasn't already reached out to us. If somebody is already handling this, I don't need to step in the middle of it. Thanks for your concern.
@Bubba - I read your comment at FT. It doesn't matter if you posted as Bubba or Anon. I would have answered you the same either way.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Since TSA engages in the illegal censorship of political speech even when on topic it is little wonder that an effort is being made to hide comments not supporting TSA.
Why not let the dialog take the discussion where it needs to go?
Bob said:
"I'm checking to make sure we haven't already reached out to her or she hasn't already reached out to us."
Her blog says TSA has been informed. If you were paying attention you would know that.
"If somebody is already handling this, I don't need to step in the middle of it. "
Based on when the situation occurred, the fact TSA hasn't taken action already is disgusting.
But go ahead and wait longer to see if someone else will "step in"
That is how problems get solved, by waiting.(sarcasm)
Anon, your sarcasm is noted and yes, I did see that she had contacted somebody. Hence the reason for me checking in to see who that contact might be.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"Hence the reason for me checking in to see who that contact might be. "
And how are you doing that? Have you contacted her? No, that would be the logical thing to do. What would be wrong with you reaching out to her to find out who she talked to and then trying to expedite the process? Based on her blog posts she isn't expecting the TSA to do anything. Why don't you prove to her that someone at the TSA actually is paying attention.
The situation is disgusting and TSA needs to step and take action.
Bob
care to comment?
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0710/751847.html
TSA employee in jail for theft of schedule II narcotics.
Professional, Highly Trained???? I dont think so.
Again Bob after repeated incidents like this why should i trust TSA at all or ever?? or is this another case, that is "isolated" and doesnt reflect on the " xxK other employees".
that line of side stepping responsibility doesnt work because this seems to be a reoccurring basis. And TSA employees wonder why i ask for a LEO if my bag with my medications gets checked, its examples like this and having stopped a attempted palming of meds more then once.
Bob, this post should be pinned, permanently, as the second story on the front page at all times. Otherwise, your unstated goal here is clear -- push all the off-topic posts to somewhere they'll be unseen and easily ignored.
"Why don't you prove to her that someone at the TSA actually is paying attention."
Then Blogger Bob posts:
"Have a great weekend! See you on Tuesday!
Blogger Bob"
Another fine example of a professionalism......
TSA Blog Team
This just feels like an effort to push criticism to lesser viewed parts of the blog.
@Anonymous - I'm not avoiding the Nature article. I have several e-mails out to subject matter experts. I can't promise a blog post out of it, but I'm not ignoring it.
@Bubba - I read your comment at FT. It doesn't matter if you posted as Bubba or Anon. I would have answered you the same either way.
___________________________________
Let me start by saying I posted only as Bubba. If you are getting other posts from an Anon, it is because there is more than one person around who won't let you forget that Nature article.
It's hard to accept your statement that you are not ignoring it when it has been over a moth since it was printed, and this is the first time you mention it since then.
A blog post would be WAY TOO LITTLE as an answer to that Nature article. The TSA itself should have a full statement on this point. They should have submitted this to the journal, in fact. We are, after all, talking about the most respected scientific journal in the World. But no, keeping your lips shut and hoping the dirty laundry will clean itself is a strategy much more fitting of your organization.
As for the statement directed to me above, I don't understand what you are alluding to. I am referring to "artfully disguising" my post as a "see something, say something" post, not to posting as anonymous.
"Another fine example of a professionalism......"
You can't win with these people Bob. You should turn into the monster they make you out to be and delete all of their posts.
Blogger Bob said...
@Anonymous - The last I checked, the issue with the 6 year old was resolved. As far as the amputee mommy post, I'm currently looking into it. It would be easier to investigate if I knew which airport the alleged incident happened at.
....................
Bob, you have stated any number of times that NO children are on the NO FLY LIST so why would anything need fixing?
Are you going to retract the NO Children on the NFL statements and admit that DHS has place defenseless children on these list?
"I'm not avoiding the Nature article. I have several e-mails out to subject matter experts. I can't promise a blog post out of it, but I'm not ignoring it."
-----------------------------------------
Two points:
1) I would hope that the "subject matter experts" include independent scientists who have not directly profited from the sale of SPOT training to the TSA. I don't expect that this is the case, but I'll hold out hope.
2) Why are you still waiting for the information that you need to offer a simple justification for the existence of a program that you've boasted about repeatedly in the past? Do you really have no evidence on hand besides your conviction that used-car salesmen can't pull one over on you? This article was published over a month ago. Stop waiting for answers and get them.
3) Why did you promptly pass along Thomas's post praising a TSA employee who treated him with basic human decency while completely ignoring the comment I posted regarding the agent at Logan who was doing literally nothing besides shouting something along the lines of "DISPOSE OF ALL BEVERAGES OR WE WILL DISPOSE OF THEM FOR YOU!"? Would it be so hard to let a supervisor at Logan know that it might be a good idea to issue a reminder about appropriate behavior and demeanor at the checkpoint?
RB said...
Bob, you have stated any number of times that NO children are on the NO FLY LIST so why would anything need fixing?
Are you going to retract the NO Children on the NFL statements and admit that DHS has place defenseless children on these list?
I'm not Bob, and I hate the TSA with the blinding passion of 1000 suns, but, This Has Been Answered. The Q&D version:
The NFL contains names of suspected terrorists. That's it, names. Since names are not unique, some non-terrorists may share their name with a terrorist, and that name might be on the list. That does not mean the non-terrorist is "on the list", just that they share a name with the terrorist who is on the list. In some cases, these non-terrorists are children. The TSA has a policy in place that says the airline can use their common sense when the traveller with a NFL name is a child.
Anonymous said...
RB said...
Bob, you have stated any number of times that NO children are on the NO FLY LIST so why would anything need fixing?
Are you going to retract the NO Children on the NFL statements and admit that DHS has place defenseless children on these list?
I'm not Bob, and I hate the TSA with the blinding passion of 1000 suns, but, This Has Been Answered. The Q&D version:
The NFL contains names of suspected terrorists. That's it, names. Since names are not unique, some non-terrorists may share their name with a terrorist, and that name might be on the list. That does not mean the non-terrorist is "on the list", just that they share a name with the terrorist who is on the list. In some cases, these non-terrorists are children. The TSA has a policy in place that says the airline can use their common sense when the traveller with a NFL name is a child.
July 3, 2010 8:44 AM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If what you say is true then why did it take intervention by a member of Congress to get this child off a watch list?
The NFL and other watch lists is a broken process.
No one should be deprived of liberty without due process.
Doing otherwise is un-American.
RB Asked…
If what you say is true then why did it take intervention by a member of Congress to get this child off a watch list?
The NFL and other watch lists is a broken process.
No one should be deprived of liberty without due process.
Doing otherwise is un-American.
-----------------------------------
Well RB, since the child was never on the list it just makes sense to contact a member of congress. After all they are the one’s that should be consulted if you don’t want anything done. Congress is certainly the subject matter experts on that.
TSORon said:
"since the child was never on the list"
So you are saying Secure Flight failed in this instance?
Something went wrong, and the DHS said a mistake was made.
I believe all stories have two sides, with that in mind, what is the TSA's version of what happened to this woman and her child?
http://amputeemommy.blogspot.com/2010/05/humiliation-and-now-im-angry.html
QUESTION: I'm looking to travel with a personal and business laptop. Does it matter, or will traveling with two laptops seem "suspicious"? Thanks
Ana,
Two laptops are just fine.
Thanks!
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
In TSA's efforts to keep important discussion hidden from the public will TSA finally answer some of the hundreds of questions that have been asked?
How about a list of rules that passengers must comply with to successfully make it through a TSA Checkpoint?
Or how about what happens if a person just doesn't want to show and identity document they have in their wallet?
How about a biggie; why are all of those dangerous liquids confiscated by TSA at checkpoints just tossed into common garbage as if they were not potentially dangerous?
Start on those and will get our list together for some others.
TSORon said...
RB Asked…
If what you say is true then why did it take intervention by a member of Congress to get this child off a watch list?
The NFL and other watch lists is a broken process.
No one should be deprived of liberty without due process.
Doing otherwise is un-American.
-----------------------------------
Well RB, since the child was never on the list it just makes sense to contact a member of congress. After all they are the one’s that should be consulted if you don’t want anything done. Congress is certainly the subject matter experts on that.
July 3, 2010 11:24 AM
......................
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
The Minister of Information declared: "As much as we’d like to hear about your synchronized swimming club, I ask that all comments posted here remain TSA focused and adhere to TSA’s comment policy."
First of all, it's not about "your synchronized swimming club."
I can only assume that unanswered questions such as:
1. Actual, unaltered body scanner images;
2. Questions about reporters being placed on the no-fly-list after publishing anti-TSA articles;
3. Amputees being forced to remove their artificial limbs;
4. Screeners stealing from passengers;
5. Screeners taking guns to work;
6. Mission creep and allegations of illegal searches;
7. Peer-review science concluding that the SPOTNik program is useless;
8. Screeners demanding answers to interrogations about passengers' travel plans;
9. etc...
are not "TSA focused"????? I'd like you to state your definition of "TSA focused" in plain English so the American People understand how Administrator Pistole will implement censorship on this blog.
By the way, is my post "TSA focused"???
Bob, what's the status of the project Paul at TSA started in November, 2008, to pull together a list of rules you require people to follow at your checkpoints? On November 12, 2008, in the "Family/Special Needs Lanes Coming to All Airports in Time for Thanksgiving Travel" post, Paul at TSA wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational." Despite repeated requests for an update on his progress, we've heard nothing more about it.
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
RB Asked...
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
----------------------------------
Because another individual out there has the same name she does, and that person's name is on the list.
Its a pretty simple concept RB.
TSORon said...
RB Asked...
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
----------------------------------
Because another individual out there has the same name she does, and that person's name is on the list.
Its a pretty simple concept RB.
July 5, 2010 10:42 PM
....................
So the end result for the child is exactly the same for her, she is considered to be on the NFL.
Such a simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
TSORon said:
"Because another individual out there has the same name she does, and that person's name is on the list."
So Secure Flight failed and the information recently provided about Secure Flight by Bob and the TSA cannot be trusted to be accurate.
Its a pretty simple concept.
In the true essence of being off topic, I would like to just bring up an issue I have had with the TSA. I applied for a TSO position in Mobile, AL a year or so ago and was rejected solely on the fact that I am diabetic. I passed every other portion of the interview process, all the test, the background check, even the physical. The TSA requires an A1C of 7.0 at the time mine was a 7.2, due to the fact that I was not working and was not able to eat properly. I am really lost as to why a .gov can discriminate against me for being diabetic.
More on the Amputee situation:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATTrMgzHq7TuZGN3MmI0OGJfMGZxaDlzc3o5&hl=en&authkey=COLsucgG
The Amputee Coalition of America survey found:
• TSA agents are often confused about how to manage screening prosthetic arms and legs.
• Amputees are often denied the ability to have their caregivers accompany them into screening rooms.
• Amputees report being screened by TSA agents not of the same gender.
• 75 percent of respondents said they were unsatisfied with their most recent TSA experience.
• 50 percent said they were required to lift or raise their clothing during a procedure called “explosive trace sampling” with no explanation given by TSA personnel.
• More than half of the amputees who responded indicated TSA personnel exhibited a lack of training relative to disability populations – namely, amputees.
Bob said:
"I’ve added a link to this post on our sidebar so people will know to post off topic comments here. "
And when you click on that link, you are taken to a page that shows the comments, but does not allow you to add a new comment.
Thank god they've finally done something to keep the posts more on topic. I'm glad all the lunatic rants are being segregated here where they can be more easily ignored (or read) by those who choose to without seeing the same (answered) questions posted over and over again.
8675309 said...
Thank god they've finally done something to keep the posts more on topic. I'm glad all the lunatic rants are being segregated here where they can be more easily ignored (or read) by those who choose to without seeing the same (answered) questions posted over and over again.
July 6, 2010 2:37 PM
=========================
If repeatedly stated, reasonable questions have been answered, then it should be no problem for you to refer me to the post where Bob provided the name and contact information of his immediate supervisor. I mean, seriously, have you EVER been involved in a customer service situation where this information has not been provided upon request? I know I haven't, and I've had some pretty miserable customer service in my time. Not once has an employee refused to identify their supervisor.
Also, perhaps you could explain how the TSA is responding to the claims made IN THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL IN THE WORLD (!!!!!) that SPOT, a program they have spent enormous money on and about which they've boasted more than once, has no scientific basis. I'm not asking you to convince me that the program is a effective, but merely to point me in the direction of TSA's response, since these questions have, according to your post, all been answered.
Andrew said...
This is a neat idea ! Congratulations. I just want to say that it is a sad world where people just want to kill people for the sake of it. Who would ever have thought when aeroplanes were first invented that they would be used as weapons with innocent passengers sitting in them. Very sad. Who would have thought that millions would need to be spent on full body scanners, shoe searches, baby bottle searches etc... etc... Am I the only one who thinks the planet is suffering from some sort of collective insanity ? I guess it's good news for the private jet industry but apart from that it just all seems so sad and unnecessary.
July 6, 2010 1:22 PM
-----------------------------------
1. There have always been disturbed people who "just want to kill people for the sake of it." However, these people rarely enter into the debate regarding terrorism/aviation security. While there's a great deal of debate with regard to the motives of recent perpetrators, no one who has been paying the slightest bit of attention over at least the last decade would describe it as "kill[ing] people for the sake of it."
2. "Who would have thought that millions would need to be spent on full body scanners, shoe searches, baby bottle searches etc... etc... "
People who know absolutely nothing about the basics of cost/benefit analysis.
3." Am I the only one who thinks the planet is suffering from some sort of collective insanity ?"
No.
Good enough. I'll post here. The TSA has signs at airports and announcements in airports about no amounts of liquids or gels over three ounces, when the actual, legal, authorized amount is 100 milliliters,or 3.4 ounces. The TSA, as stated on this blog, has no intention of correcting these signs which provide misinformation.
So, I asked before, and I'll ask again. What am I supposed to do when I show up at a TSA security check point with my food in LEGAL 3.4 ounce / 100 milliliter containers, and some ill-trained or officious TSO points to these incorrect signs and tells me I have to throw my food out?
Call the supervisor? Yes, and then what do I do when the supervisor points to those same signs and tells me to throw my food out?
Call the air port manager? Right, and when S/HE points to the signs and tells me to throw my food out?
My food is medically required. It cannot be replaced in the secure area.
I intend to follow the CORRECT INFORMATION AS POSTED on both this blog and the TSA web site.
But tell me, why do I have to print out half your web site and carry it with me, and jump through hoops because the TSA will not provide the correct information to the public and its own officers?
And, once again, how do I keep a TSO from endangering my health and endangering my freedom to travel because they don't know the rules and the TSA won't post the correct rules in the airports?
8675309, please point me to where an answer to the extensive article posted in the top ranking scientific journal Nature regarding the SPOT program was posted within this blog, the TSA site, or any public correspondence whatsoever produced by this organization.
8675309, please tell us which questions were actually answered. Nonanswer answers don't count.
Al
Quoted:
"Why did you promptly pass along Thomas's post praising a TSA employee who treated him with basic human decency while completely ignoring the comment I posted regarding the agent at Logan who was doing literally nothing besides shouting something along the lines of "DISPOSE OF ALL BEVERAGES OR WE WILL DISPOSE OF THEM FOR YOU!"? Would it be so hard to let a supervisor at Logan know that it might be a good idea to issue a reminder about appropriate behavior and demeanor at the checkpoint?"
-----------------------
Uh, maybe because that agent was actually DOING NOTHING WRONG!!! While I agree that we should strive to avoid yelling at passengers, I myself (as a Manager) will frequently stand at the front of the line and advise passengers (in an admittedly loud voice - to be heard) that they should remove all liquids from thier belongings and that anything over 3.4 oz must be declared or disposed of. And do you know what? I can gaurantee with absolute certainty (I have and do keep track) that at least 2 out of 7 passengers (usually more) will either have not removed thier "freedom baggie" from thier luggage or still have water / soda / large shampoos or other items in thier bag resulting in a bag check. We do not like the liquids ban either (we have to screen the bags remember) but we do enforce it.
These people have walked past 12 (actual count) signs, some as large as 36 x 48, detailing the liquids policy, have seen it in the newspapers, heard it on the radio / TV as well as the airport announcement system, ignored the posters on EACH airline counter, etc.
Believe it or not, when we don't make the verbal announcements on the line and hold up the baggies, we actually get almost double the number of bag checks.
So, sorry if you don't like the person at the front of the CP yelling. We don't like getiing hoarse and poking through filthy underwear while doing 3000 needless bag checks a day while passengers are yelling that they are going to miss thier flight.
Try opening your eyes and ears and following the rules and we won't have to yell!
Oh and by the way, while her choice of wording may not have been tactful, it's pretty accurate. If a passenger comes through with liquids over the limit and surrenders them, we will dispose of them for you!
"Try opening your eyes and ears and following the rules and we won't have to yell!"
So TSA is saying it is OK to yell at the "highly trained" TSO who don't know the rules
"These people have walked past (a heck of a LOT of signs and notices)"
We arrive at the airport and are bombarded with many, many, LOUD, (self)!!!IMPORTANT!!! messages!!!
We tune them out to keep out of overwhelm.
Why do you think shouting is necessary to get people's cooperation?
Could the document checker, or one of the many people who always seem to be standing around give a quiet, polite, non-imperative reminder?
Have you considered that yelling imperiously at people who have done nothing wrong creates an adversarial atmosphere instead of fostering cheerful cooperation?
A friend has an insulin pump.
She avoids flying because of concerns at finding herself at the mercy of the TSA.
It is sad when the TSA has people with special needs afraid of them.
It is sadder still that their fear is justified.
"These people have walked past 12 (actual count) signs, some as large as 36 x 48"
Of course, every single one of those signs contains incorrect information, since TSA's policy is to lie to passengers.
The 9/11 attackers did not "just want to kill people for the sake of it."
They had specific political purposes and an agenda. They have been very successful.
We removed our air base from Saudi Arabia as they wanted.
We took out one of their targets; the too secular Saddam Hussein.
We were provoked into acting in ways that undermined our role as world leaders for the "rule of law".
They made us fearful and changed our way of life.
They did not "kill people for the sake of it" or because "they hate us for our freedoms".
RB said...
"How about a biggie; why are all of those dangerous liquids confiscated by TSA at checkpoints just tossed into common garbage as if they were not potentially dangerous?"
Good question RB. Nico answered this question back in 2009.
A clip from “What happens to your prohibited items?”
A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.
We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.
That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico
RB said…
“In TSA's efforts to keep important discussion hidden from the public will TSA finally answer some of the hundreds of questions that have been asked?”
This is a loaded question. TSA is not trying to hide public discussion. I don’t answer loaded questions RB, and will continue to discourage such posting.
RB said…
“How about a list of rules that passengers must comply with to successfully make it through a TSA Checkpoint?”
The checkpoint SOP will not become public. Congress called it a terrorist training manual. As far as a page containing “just rules” (like a penal code) and not procedure, I don’t think it is going to happen. Another then the blog, I have not heard anything about this, and am against it personally (just opinion feel free to ignore).
RB said…
“Or how about what happens if a person just doesn't want to show and identity document they have in their wallet?”
Best question so far. I am going to send an email out, and will answer your question by the end of this week.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
I would like to address the Nature article that is critical of TSA SPOT and Paul Ekman. Now I would like to say up front that I am not part of the TSA, so I have never gone through the SPOT training, but I do play a lot of poker on a semi professional level and have read several of Ekmans books. If you play poker, or just watch a lot on TV, than you know that in a high level of the game, apart from a strong strategy to included monitoring betting patterns, that you need skills in “stress detection”. This skill is critical in determining if your opponent real has a strong hand when he throws in all his chips of is he is just trying to bluff. The more important and stressful the play is, the easier it is to read your opponent. I am not saying that it is my, or any other serious players, main focus when playing, but it is indisputably a factor in high level play. Like I said I have read some of Ekmans work and have found what it says on human facial expression very helpful in developing this skill, and I intend to continue in my reading of the rest of his published work. As far as testing these skills in a controlled setting goes, it’s impossible. If it’s not the real thing than it simply can’t be used to the same extent. To apply it to poker, it would be like trying to equate the stress in a private no money game to the real thing with thousands of dollars on the table. The stress levels are to low to use this skill, what you are looking for simply is not there. I would think that if a person with the intent to take a flight down came through security that the stress levels would be so high, and as a result they would be so tense, that anyone who was watching him/her would know something was up. Giving TSA people training geared to detect it can only help in identifying it. Any replies to my post, as I am sure there will be, please address to Anon1.
A question asked and gone unanswered;
What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?
Would a bottle larger than 100 ml not be exempted since it is a medically required liquid?
RB stated…
So the end result for the child is exactly the same for her, she is considered to be on the NFL.
Such a simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
------------
Your comment is a bit obtuse RB. It is not TSA’s fault that the young lady has the same name as another individual who’s name is on the list, and that this other person presents a risk to civil aviation. I guess you could say that she is just an unlucky young lady that has another complication in her life. “Same name” problems have been present throughout the history of mankind, TSA is not the cause of this nor does any reasonable person expect the TSA to have an infallible answer for it.
-----------------------------------
Anonymous quipped …
So Secure Flight failed and the information recently provided about Secure Flight by Bob and the TSA cannot be trusted to be accurate.
-----------------------------------
Unfortunately there Anon there are limits to what can can done and what cannot to make any system 100% accurate. As I said to RB the TSA cannot control who has the same name as someone else on the list, nor does TSA stand in front of the poor passenger who’s name is the same as that suspect individual and decide that this is or is not the same person. Secure Flight is a better way of doing things. Better, but not perfect, and I don’t believe you will be able to point out where any member of the TSA has said that it is. Demanding perfection, by either yourself or RB, is not reasonable. Honesty is the best policy.
RB said...
A question asked and gone unanswered;
What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?
---------------------------------
The answer is on the label of the product. Take a moment and read it.
"Since TSA engages in the illegal censorship of political speech..."
If what they are doing is illegal then sic the law on 'em.
Problem solved.
Anon1:
I have read about Paul Ekman.
He studied detecting people lying.
Not the loftier goals of the SPOT program.
He said it was a rare talent some people have.
Nowhere have I seen him claim that he can teach these skills.
If these skills can be taught (outside of natural talent and years in the field as a law enforcement officer or such) then the success of that teaching can be tested and measured.
Some of us would like to see some sort of empirical data that shows this program is not a waste of time, effort and money.
TSORon said:
there are limits to what can can done and what cannot to make any system 100% accurate. ... Secure Flight is a better way of doing things. Better, but not perfect, and I don’t believe you will be able to point out where any member of the TSA has said that it is. "
But Blogger Bob said:
"Secure Flight started rolling out in 2009 and I'm happy to announce that TSA is now performing 100% of the watchlist matching for domestic flights. (Airlines used to conduct all of the passenger watchlist matching)
What is watchlist matching? It's when a passenger is prescreened using their name, date of birth and gender (that should match the information on their approved official government ID) against government watchlists for domestic and international flights. "
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
Anon1,
I'm sure you understand there is no way you can compare your own personal observations regarding poker faces to the extensive and detailed critique specific to the SPOT program uncovered in Nature, the leading scientific journal in the World!
TSORon said...
RB stated…
So the end result for the child is exactly the same for her, she is considered to be on the NFL.
Such a simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
------------
Your comment is a bit obtuse RB. It is not TSA’s fault that the young lady has the same name as another individual who’s name is on the list, and that this other person presents a risk to civil aviation. I guess you could say that she is just an unlucky young lady that has another complication in her life. “Same name” problems have been present throughout the history of mankind, TSA is not the cause of this nor does any reasonable person expect the TSA to have an infallible answer for it.
..................
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.
Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?
HappyToHelp said...
RB said...
"How about a biggie; why are all of those dangerous liquids confiscated by TSA at checkpoints just tossed into common garbage as if they were not potentially dangerous?"
Good question RB. Nico answered this question back in 2009.
A clip from “What happens to your prohibited items?”
A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.
We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.
That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico
..................
So that would mean that TSA's insistance that a single component LGA weapon is a fallacy, correct?
And if the weapon is a multi-component device would you not have both components in the trash bins anyhow?
The answer given by Nico is of about the same quality that WBI Strip Search Machine images are suitable for the cover of Readers Digest.
No one believed that answer either!
TSM, Been here... said...
Quoted:
"Why did you promptly pass along Thomas's post praising a TSA employee who treated him with basic human decency while completely ignoring the comment I posted regarding the agent at Logan who was doing literally nothing besides shouting something along the lines of "DISPOSE OF ALL BEVERAGES OR WE WILL DISPOSE OF THEM FOR YOU!"? Would it be so hard to let a supervisor at Logan know that it might be a good idea to issue a reminder about appropriate behavior and demeanor at the checkpoint?"
-----------------------
Uh, maybe because that agent was actually DOING NOTHING WRONG!!! While I agree that we should strive to avoid yelling at passengers,
................
Well there's the problem, TSA managers, and I use the word manager loosely, thinks yelling at citizens is a workable policy.
RB said…
“So that would mean that TSA's insistance that a single component LGA weapon is a fallacy, correct?”
You seem confused on the planned device for the 2006 liquid bomb plot. Do a case study of that plot, and the current situation will be clearer to you.
Start with these news articles.
The drink bottle that could have downed a plane
Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people
I’m not sure where you got your misinformation from. Just a word of advice RB, you may not want to take your bomb advice from the FT bomb experts.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
TSORon said...
"The answer is on the label of the product [Clear Care brand contact lens solution]"
TSORon, since you seem to know the answer to the question why don't you just answer the question? Why play games?
Please, spare us a trip to a store to find this product and read a label we may not understand.
Why are passengers carrying Clear Care an issue? Why are they having problems? Why does the TSA not talk to us in a straight forward way about this issue?
Why is this question that has been asked by others not being answered?
Telling us to "look at the label" is another non-answer.
Flight Medic said
Again Bob after repeated incidents like this why should i trust TSA at all or ever?? or is this another case, that is "isolated" and doesnt reflect on the " xxK other employees".
that line of side stepping responsibility doesnt work because this seems to be a reoccurring basis. And TSA employees wonder why i ask for a LEO if my bag with my medications gets checked, its examples like this and having stopped a attempted palming of meds more then once.
-----------------------------------
Get a life
You hear about it only because it's TSA. You don't hear about the multi million people each day that get caught with illegal drugs because it's not news. Noone is trying to palm your meds. If that were true you would be bragging about the TSA employee you had arrested. Maybe those meds are just making you paranoid.
RB said
Bob, you have stated any number of times that NO children are on the NO FLY LIST so why would anything need fixing?
Are you going to retract the NO Children on the NFL statements and admit that DHS has place defenseless children on these list?
-----------------------------------
Theres nothing to admit. No children are on the no fly list. Children may have names of others on the no fly list. The fact is that it's a name.
from RB
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
-----------------------------------
Probably because the airlines didn't do their part
Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?
---------------------------------------
RB said...
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.
Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?
---------------------------------------
Maybe TSA should have had you build the system, then we all know it would be 100% perfect, right?
What is it you think that they are being accused of there RB? Being a risk? Well heck guy, chainsaws are a risk, as are cars, motorcycles, and lollipops. No law against something being a risk, or someone. But I'm not going to use a chainsaw on concrete, or attempt to drive a car or motorcycle across the pacific ocean, or use a lollipop to stop an armed robbery.
Nor would I allow someone who is a risk to civil aviation access to a jet liner. And denying a person who is such a risk access to a commercial aircraft does not harm them or mark them as a criminal, nor does it impinge on their civil rights. So, as long as you are not on the list then you have nothing to worry about.
Anonymous said...
Anon1:
I have read about Paul Ekman.
He studied detecting people lying.
Not the loftier goals of the SPOT program.
He said it was a rare talent some people have.
Nowhere have I seen him claim that he can teach these skills.
If these skills can be taught (outside of natural talent and years in the field as a law enforcement officer or such) then the success of that teaching can be tested and measured.
Some of us would like to see some sort of empirical data that shows this program is not a waste of time, effort and money.
___________________________________
I suggest you actually read some of Paul Ekman’s work. It has less to do with “detecting people lying” and is more of a study in cataloging universal human facial expressions and how they relate to emotions. Smile=Happy…ect, but obviously on a much more detailed level (especially when he gets into micro-expressions).
Again if you had read his work you would know that although he dose state that some people are naturally better at detecting emotions it is a skill he believes can be learned.
He not only claims that he can teach these skills he is actually involved in an advisory capacity in multiple programs, including SPOT, which have exactly that goal.
In regard to testing these skills, as I have stated in my previous post, it is very difficult to administer a test in a controlled environment that can actually measure this ability. For these skills to be used to their full extent the subject you are observing must be under a considerable amount of stress. Simply having someone lie with no consequence to being found out and seeing how many times an individual trained in these skills can tell is a total pointless and invalid assessment of these skills.
As I have also stated that I think in a real life situation of an individual attempting an act of terrorism the stress levels of that individual would be so high that your average person would notice something off about them (as seen in the past with the incident in Florida). If I have any qualms about this program it’s that the TSA is apparently only training a few of their staff with this skill.
Anon1
Another week has gone by and still no update on the amputee situation.
I guess Bob is still waiting for the problem to go away on its own. :(
But I digress, I'd like to post another shining example of the well trained professional staff that is the TSA:
From FT:
"PWM TSA screener barks "Remove your knee brace because it is setting off our alarm" to me."
Can i bring a straightener, curling iron and blow dryer on my carry on ??
TSORon said...
Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?
---------------------------------------
RB said...
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.
Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?
---------------------------------------
Maybe TSA should have had you build the system, then we all know it would be 100% perfect, right?
What is it you think that they are being accused of there RB? Being a risk? Well heck guy, chainsaws are a risk, as are cars, motorcycles, and lollipops. No law against something being a risk, or someone. But I'm not going to use a chainsaw on concrete, or attempt to drive a car or motorcycle across the pacific ocean, or use a lollipop to stop an armed robbery.
Nor would I allow someone who is a risk to civil aviation access to a jet liner. And denying a person who is such a risk access to a commercial aircraft does not harm them or mark them as a criminal, nor does it impinge on their civil rights. So, as long as you are not on the list then you have nothing to worry about.
July 8, 2010 11:04 PM
...................
Why does checking someones identity matter if TSA screens the people for WEI anyhow?
As for as designing Secure Flight, I think a toddler could have done as good a job as whoever created it.
The problem with Watch Lists is that we don't know what we are being accused of, nor why. DHS/TSA won't tell a person why they are on a list nor provides a workable method to challenge being on a list.
If DHS/TSA takes any action depriving a person of their liberty, including travel, without due process then they have had their civil rights violated.
If a person is dangerous to civil aviation why not just have them charged with a crime and let the justice system resolve the problem?
That would be the American way, something that seems foreign to TSA.
As I have also stated that I think in a real life situation of an individual attempting an act of terrorism the stress levels of that individual would be so high that your average person would notice something off about them (as seen in the past with the incident in Florida). If I have any qualms about this program it’s that the TSA is apparently only training a few of their staff with this skill.
Anon1
July 9, 2010 2:00 AM
....................
GAO seems to disagree and has stated that TSA has not properly studied Behavior Detection and cannot justify the expense of the program.
I'll trust GAO's opinion on this.
Anon1,
Did you ever consider the possibility that a real terrorist might not be incredibly nervous because this person is brainwashed and believes to be doing a good thing? They may be even quite happy, thinking they are going to heaven, etc...
Also, did you know that there are medications, such as beta-blockers, that inhibit the symptoms of nervousness? They are frequently used by public speakers and musicians.
Most of all, the World's most prominent scientific journal questions the soundness behind the SPOT program, in a detailed, point by point analysis that includes references to the few works that could suggest some support to the program, such as the one you cite. They are all discredited as sound support for the SPOT program within that article. I suggest you read it. If you can answer all their criticism, you should write a paper for publication in Nature, and maybe then you can convince us! Until you do that, I'm sticking with the top scientific journal in the World, a more credible source than Anon1 on this blog.
We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.
That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico
And this reasoning has be shown to be faulty. Two people can go through security with bottles designed to leak. The bottles get thrown in the trash can, the contents leak, mix, and... explosion, poison gas, noxious smoke, whatever.
Not to mention the simple fact that, with modern miniaturization, a simple timer/detonator can be hidden up inside a bottle cap, and the bottle filled with something explosive. How much damage would a 2-liter bottle of gasoline do when it explodes next to the security line?
SO- if the bottle are Sooooooo dangerous we can't take them on board, then they absolutely NEED to be handled as if they are dangerous. Not just casually disposed of.
TSORon said...
Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?
___________________________________
TSA says it matches 100% name, birth date and gender against the watch list.
so how does a child (and there are no children on the watch list) match unless her name, gender and BIRTH DATE matched?
TSM/West said:
"No children are on the no fly list. Children may have names of others on the no fly list. The fact is that it's a name."
------------------------------------
But Secure Flight also matches birth dates.
Apparently this child also had the same birth date as someone on the list.
But keep forgetting about that part and continue arguing there are no children on the list.
Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring.
is peanut butter a liquid? I traveled internationally recently and inadvertantly packed my peanut butter in carry on on return. I left Ukraine explaining what it was they were fine. I left Germany with it after explaining what it was. no one even opened the jar. I got to Chicago and couldnt take it home to Minneapolis with me. It wasnt a big expense or even that much left in the jar. so I said go ahead and toss it if its a problem. but since the TSA website says food in its packaging is ok I am wondering why my Peanut Butter wasnt ok? The attendant didnt open it or ask me to open it and you could see the peanut butter within through the jar. A little common sense within the TSA might be useful. in the absense of that, can you tell me if Peanut butter is forbidden?
Does the TSA plan on providing AIT sample images to the public of the same size and resolution that the screener sees?
If DHS/TSA stupidity is off topic then I guess this post belongs here.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/11/us-airspace-rules-irk-canada/
U.S. airspace rules irk Canada
"The American obsession with security has literally reached new heights of paranoia," said an editorial last week in the Calgary Herald. "The thought of the U.S. government denying boarding passes to travelers on outbound Canadian flights direct to Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, Jamaica or Havana is another example that the terrorists have won."
I want to congratulate DHS/TSA for making one of our (use to be) allies and enemy.
Perhaps the new "Dear Leader" can take a moment and tell us how ticking off our neighbors moves the security ball forward.
Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good.
If you have a complaint why not offer a different option, one that doesnt say just do away with it but a real alternative.
Bob,
Why is this post considered on topic under the heading of internet access control, while many of our previous posts were cut for being off topic?
Bubba, still waiting for an answer to the extensive analysis in Nature criticizing the SPOT program.
Anonymous said...
Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring.
July 11, 2010 1:38 PM
....................
If you have read this blog since day one you would know that many suggestions have been freely given to TSA only to be ignored.
I offer another suggestion to TSA, get out of the airport security business because like most other government efforts TSA has screwed the proverbial pooch.
Oh, if you find this blog boring then why not find one more to your taste?
Oh, and what's this three-inches wide column thing you got going here. Makes stuff very hard to read.
Lack of quoting makes things hard to follow, as well.
I've seen homemade forum software that was better than this.
The Government in action, I guess.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100713/1abodyscans13_st.art.htm
Backlash grows vs. full-body scanners
Fliers worry about privacy, health risks
By Gary Stoller
USA TODAY
Comments TSA? Seems to question TSA's claim of +90% acceptance, eh?
Has TSA been caught once again using propaganda instead of truth?
Wife had spinal fusion surgery. 2 titanium bars - 8 screws. Is anything else needed - something from Physician. Xray? Read that personal search is needed. That's OK. Wondered, though, about coming back from England. What is required at Heathrow?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good.
July 12, 2010 4:52 PM
----------------------------------
Since the TSA has never caught a terrorist at a checkpoint in over 8 years nor has Canadian TSA (whatever it is called) I would say the screening measures are just as good.
What makes you think their security measures are any worse? Is it the fact that they don't hassle innocent passengers as much that causes you concern?
What does it take to get a response to a "Got Feedback?" submission? The first time I submitted one, last year, I received no response for several weeks until I posted here and Bob contacted the manager at the airport in question.
I submitted a fresh complaint last week on a different topic/airport and have yet to receive a response. Does anyone actually process the submissions or do they just go into a unread queue? Is a week of no acknowledgment considered normal, or should I wait several more weeks before assuming I was ignored like last time?
Figures I write a post and it errors out.
@Anon: "Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring."
Anon, how long have you been here? I've been here since the very beginning of this blog. I and many others have proposed solutions many times on this board. Many are good and reasonable measures. TSA ignores them. TSA has to be interested in getting suggestions and feedback in the first place. It doesn't care.
@Another Anon: "Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good."
This has got to be one of the most ignorant and condescending statements I've read in here in a very long time.
Considering CATSA mirrors TSA's policies and does what we do, just why shouldn't we trust them? Do we think they're stupid? Do we not trust our security, therefore we shouldn't trust theirs? Does the US have the monopoly on "good" (and I use that term loosely) security? Given the coziness of our nations on defense and intelligence, we have no reason not to trust them.
Given the abysmal failure that TSA has been proven to be (unless you think the GAO is lying too), how can the Canadians be sure that WE are providing adequate security so something doesn't happen in THEIR space? They can't. If we're going to play these stupid games, Canada can play them too. Canada would be well within its rights to put stupid rules on ex-US flights that transit their space. Given that the vast majority of ex-US flights bound for Asia or Europe transit Canadian space, they would be well within their rights.
I'd really love to see Canada put those rules on us or just close their airspace to us. DHS and TSA need to be knocked down a few pegs. They do not dictate global security policy, especially considering they have shown no ability to get ours right. If Canada did that to us, people here would be screaming bloody murder. So why is not a big deal that one of our closest allies and friends is irked by our stupidity affecting them?
Earl
Bob,
Why did you delete the post I was quoting above? Kind of defeats the point of my post.
Cultural disconnect here, folks. "Irked" in Canadian-English means something roughly equivelant to "Extremely annoyed, almost ready to start cursing" in American-English.
MOONDOG: The restrictions are for liquid,gels,aerosoles and PASTE, peanut butter is classified as a paste soo no anything above 100ml is not allowed
TSO87 said...
MOONDOG: The restrictions are for liquid,gels,aerosoles and PASTE, peanut butter is classified as a paste soo no anything above 100ml is not allowed
July 14, 2010 9:37 AM
........................
"peanut butter is classified as a paste"
By whom?
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-07-12-full-body-scanners_N.htm
Backlash grows vs. full-body scanners
"By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Many frequent fliers complain they're time-consuming or invade their privacy. The world's airlines say they shouldn't be used for primary security screening. And questions are being raised about possible effects on passengers' health"
Rest of the sotry at link provided.
................
So TSA, you have told us that 97% of the people accept the Strip Search Machines.
Did you post something that was not true again?
Regarding The Amputee Mommy Post:
We have reached out to the field and nobody is aware of this incident.
We have reached out to the blogger and have had no response as of yet.
If I learn anything else, I'll let you know.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bubba Said: Bob, Why did you delete the post I was quoting above? Kind of defeats the point of my post.
@Bubba - I'm not sure what post you're referring to. I haven't deleted any posts.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"We have reached out to the field and nobody is aware of this incident."
LOL! You are hilarious!!!
Are you surprised
"We have reached out to the blogger and have had no response as of yet."
Have you contacted the ACA about the press release that shows a systemic problem in the TSA?
Has the TSA taken any action based on the press release?
Anonymous Said: LOL! You are hilarious!!!
@Anon: As a mater of fact, TSA will be meeting with ACA in the very near future.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Blogger Bob said...
Regarding The Amputee Mommy Post:
We have reached out to the blogger and have had no response as of yet
------------------------------------
When I see a comment from you on her Blog, then I will believe you have reached out.
There is no reason that cannot be done.
"As a mater of fact, TSA will be meeting with ACA in the very near future."
When?
And I mean a specific date?
@TSO87,
"MOONDOG: The restrictions are for liquid,gels,aerosoles and PASTE, peanut butter is classified as a paste soo no anything above 100ml is not allowed"
Since when is peanut butter a paste?
And for that matter, I don't see PASTE on the restricted list anyway. Here's the official TSA page advising passengers of what they can carry. Find paste.
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/311_brochure.pdf
"A Career Where X-Ray Vision and Federal Benefits Come Standard,"
Why is the TSA using pizza boxes to recruit screeners? Can you guys set the bar any lower?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/tsa_using_pizza_boxes_to_recru.html
TSA reported 128 guns found at checkpoints on the TSA.Gov webpage.
Then changed the listing to N/A and later changed it again to 28 guns found.
So what gives TSA?
Mr. Blogger Bob:
I hope you really love your job, but I pray you meant to say "I am currently working at TSA headquarters" and not truly residing there.
Your bio says:
I worked at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) for 5 years and am currently residing at TSA headquarters.
Bob,
Almost two weeks ago, you wrote:
"I'm not avoiding the Nature article. I have several e-mails out to subject matter experts. I can't promise a blog post out of it, but I'm not ignoring it. "
This was, of course, in reference to an article that was published at the end of May. I wonder if you could possibly update us on the progress of your inquiries. Have you heard anything back from the "subject matter experts" that you e-mailed? I'd also like to know, generally speaking, who these so-called "experts are"; i.e. do they include anyone who has not financially benefitted from the implementation of SPOT?
Is it really possible that TSA has no official position on this issue?
----------------------------------------
On an unrelated matter, I wanted to thank you for keeping this thread permanently pinned at the second spot on the blog. A lot of us expected that it would be buried somewhere, and it's nice to see you take this step.
Yes thanks bob for letting us bash you and TSA it makes us feel good!
Blogger Bob said:
We have reached out to the field and nobody is aware of this incident.
------------------------------------
Well, that's it then...
Hey, couldn't we use that same technique to combat terrorism?
"Will all terrorist, please identify yourself to a TSA agent at the checkpoint"
I have been told by a travel agent that TSA is requiring all airline tickets issued for travel between US mainland destinations and Puerto Rico to have a valid passport number before issuing a ticket. Does TSA now require passports for US citizen travel between the US mainland and Puerto Rico? Has such a notification been given to travel agents?
Thanks.
Bob, in regards to full body scanners, which have not yet been installed at my airport but are scheduled to be either this year or next, please respond to this article which was posted on AOL today, specifficaly please address the health concerns that were raised in this article, along with the privacy concerns that many posters on this blog have raised, and please explain why TSA insists on using this equipment when other countries have stated they will not:
UPDATE, New Q&A:
How does TSA respond to new concerns voiced Dr. Brenner, that radiation from scanners has been "underestimated" and could pose a risk of skin cancer in certain groups including children?
Advanced imaging technology screening is safe for all passengers, including pregnant women and children. Backscatter technology was evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). All results confirmed that the radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders were well below the dose limits specified by the American National Standards Institute.
The International Air Transport Association says TSA lacks "a strategy and vision" on how body scanners fit into a comprehensive security plan and amount to "putting the cart before the horse." How does TSA respond?
TSA first piloted advanced imaging technology in 2007, and Congress approved TSA's current deployment plan in May 2009. Following the attempted attack on December 25, President Obama called for accelerated deployment of advanced imaging technology. Since then, TSA has worked closely with airports to identify candidates based on risk, airport readiness, and operational suitability. TSA works with each airport to determine the best location for each machine to process passengers efficiently and achieve its security goals.
Do these machines actually have the capability of detecting dangerous items concealed on the body? The GAO among others has raised questions in this area. Have body scanners been fully tested in this regard?
While there is no silver bullet technology, advanced imaging technology is very effective at detecting metallic and nonmetallic threats on passengers, including explosives. While evaluating imaging technology at airports security officers have identified concealed prohibited and illegal items on passengers attempting to pass through the security checkpoint. Further, this technology doesn't stand alone: it's one part of our multi-layered strategy to minimize risk, deter future attacks and protect the traveling public.
TSA began piloting imaging technology in early 2007. Through the pilot process, TSA gained operational information used to enhance training, improve the screening process and further bolster detection capabilities. Using this critical technology, TSA routinely detects artfully concealed metallic and nonmetallic prohibited items.
TSA completed comprehensive operational testing and evaluation of this technology and is confident that it will significantly increase our detection capability at the checkpoint. TSA's Operational Testing and Evaluation of this technology strongly validates the benefits and efficacy of advanced imaging technology to address the threat we face. When it comes to the safety of the traveling public, the nation's security matters most which is why we're working to quickly deploy advanced imaging technology to keep our skies safe.
Would body scanning machines have stopped the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab to blow up the Detroit-bound jet on Christmas?
Imaging technology can detect both metallic and non-metallic threat items which includes a wide range of substances to include powders. It is a proven technology and we are highly confident in its detection capabilities.
BB wrote on July 14 re amputee mommy:
"Regarding The Amputee Mommy Post:
We have reached out to the field and nobody is aware of this incident.
We have reached out to the blogger and have had no response as of yet.
If I learn anything else, I'll let you know."
Today, the blogger wrote:
"During the past few weeks my blog has received a lot of attention because of the issues I encountered with TSA. I have been in touch with TSA officials about the incident and I am satisfied with the result. I am also pleased to report that ACA will be meeting with officials from TSA to work towards achieving a stardardized approach to amputee screening protocols...."
Seems like somebody is missing something here.
I have one question.
I was wondering if there is a limit to how many carry ons a person can take if they are taking a son/daughter under the age of two?
Thank you for this thread, should it matter to the classification of peanut butter as a paste that some people are allergic to it? Of course the chunky peanut butter is less pasty, and that's more dangerous. I'd like to see the TSA's physicist/chemist panel report on chunky v. smooth.
Mary asked - "I was wondering if there is a limit to how many carry ons a person can take if they are taking a son/daughter under the age of two?"
Good question Mary. The airlines are the ones that determine the number of bags that are allowed to be carried. When you are preparing to fly the next time, contact the specific airline that you are traveling with, and they would be able to give you the amount of carryons allowed. Sorry I am not able to give you a specific answer, but it can vary from airline to airline! Take care and come see us again sometime!
West
TSA Blog Team
So the blog will be updated more often now that the boss is looking? :)
RB Said…
Comments TSA? Seems to question TSA's claim of +90% acceptance, eh?
Has TSA been caught once again using propaganda instead of truth?
-----------------------
No RB, but you may have been. Try the following link, to several independent poll’s on the subject.
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/reading.shtm
Mary said...
I have one question.
I was wondering if there is a limit to how many carry ons a person can take if they are taking a son/daughter under the age of two?
----------------------
The TSA does not limit luggage of any kind Mary. Only airlines do that, please contact your airline for their policies.
Have you ever had your "TSA Notice of Baggage Inspection" stuffed and crumpled into one of your personal items, so that you cannot see it when you open the bag? When you do find it, the container into which TSA stuffed it is ruined so that you cannot use it? Well, I have. In my Travel-pro hardside check luggage I found my new box of BandAids to be crushed in and to contain not only BandAids but also a crumpled TSA form. What is the purpose of that? All my documents were removed from the flat, transparent zipper pocket that keeps documents flat and just dumped out in the bag any which way. The icing on the cake is that this bag was left unzipped, clothes were dumped off their hangers, and my new dress tiebacks were dragged outside of the box (like strings hanging out) all the way from PHL to GEG. This occured for my check bag on July 13th checked on United at PHL (Philadelphia). What a sloppy and disrespectful job of baggage inspection! Come on, PHL TSA, I'm sure you can do better than this.
"If I disagree with what someone is saying, and comment about it, I am (by definition) being adversarial. I post here because I want to further communication and learn. I am not certain what stereotypes I am perpetuating,"
Things are getting muddled. This is not about you disagreeing with someone. This started because you ventured a guess in response to a post asking for facts.
People raised objections. Your response to those objections, quite properly but un-diplomatically, boiled down to, "You can't tell me what to do. I'll do whatever I want."
There is where you perpetuate a stereotype.
It is exactly the response many expect from someone in the TSA when their actions are challenged or questioned in any way.
At least you did not drop the DYWTFT? bomb or subject them to a secondary screening. :)
Subj: Posting the entire ****** post you are replying to.
Google tl;dr.
People, post any way you want to post. But consider that your post might get more and better consideration is we don't have to scroll half way to Australia before you get to the pint. I mean point.
Anon sez - "Things are getting muddled. This is not about you disagreeing with someone. This started because you ventured a guess in response to a post asking for facts.
People raised objections. Your response to those objections, quite properly but un-diplomatically, boiled down to, "You can't tell me what to do. I'll do whatever I want."
There is where you perpetuate a stereotype.
It is exactly the response many expect from someone in the TSA when their actions are challenged or questioned in any way.
At least you did not drop the DYWTFT? bomb or subject them to a secondary screening. :)"
First, thanks for moving this discussion over to this thread!
Second, anyone that knows or has worked with me knows I would never, ever use the dreaded DYWTFT phrase. I wish it had never been put together and used in an airport - it is incendiary and does not serve to resolve the situation. I find that kindness mixed with firmness is the best method of dealing with almost all situations. I can see where the impression that it was a politely worded "I will do what I want" phrase, because in a way it was. I feel we are all entitled to our opinions and we should be able to post them here (within the guidelines at least). It is one of the easiest ways for me to learn what some of the public is thinking. It is also a way for me to get my two cents worth in from time to time. I am not great at diplomacy, I am better than I was when I was younger, but I am not going to travel to exotic countries and work out trade agreements! I will not apologize for giving my opinion, but I will apologize (like I did in the other thread) when I am wrong about things.
As for secondary screening, I can't give a retaliatory screening for anyone (hehe, nor would I want to!). =)
West
TSA Blog Team
Why is this post no longer pinned as number two. Are you now planning to bump it off page one?
Anon sez - "Why is this post no longer pinned as number two. Are you now planning to bump it off page one?"
Anon, this page has a permanent link in the right hand side of the Home page. It will always be available to you from there. The blog post (like all of the others before it) will continue to move down the list and eventually leave the front page queue.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said:
"Not to mention the simple fact that, with modern miniaturization, a simple timer/detonator can be hidden up inside a bottle cap, and the bottle filled with something explosive. How much damage would a 2-liter bottle of gasoline do when it explodes next to the security line"
@anonymous:
This miniaturized timer and detonator would still need a power source... and electronics being hidden in the cap of a bottle would be noticeable on an x-ray. It turns out the machines let the TSO's see INSIDE the items as well as the bags.
"Anon, this page has a permanent link in the right hand side of the Home page. It will always be available to you from there. The blog post (like all of the others before it) will continue to move down the list and eventually leave the front page queue.
West
TSA Blog Team"
_____________________________________
West,
I just wanted to point out that this was NOT the case last week, when this post appeared to be permanently pinned as #2. Heck, I even went so far as to thank Bob for the decision....
Chris Free said...
This miniaturized timer and detonator would still need a power source... and electronics being hidden in the cap of a bottle would be noticeable on an x-ray. It turns out the machines let the TSO's see INSIDE the items as well as the bags.
July 18, 2010 2:43 PM
Aren't liquids taken away from passengers BEFORE they go through the xray? As I said, it would be trivial for someone to make a bottle-bomb, hand it over to the TSA, who will carelessly leave it sitting in a trashcan next to the security line, and then blow it up.
Once again: If a bottle of liquid is SO DANGEROUS we can't get on the plane with it, then this DANGEROUS bottle of liquid shouldn't be casually tossed in a trash can. On the other hand, if it's safe enough to leave in a trash can, it is safe enough to take on the plane.
Curtis (Bob),
This isn't the first time you've tried "from now on all comments must be on topic." It's hard to implement for one very big reason:
You have a hard time staying on topic.
Seriously, Curtis. You only respond to comments in the most recent post. You never respond to comments in an older post. Whenever a TSO does something particularly boneheaded and people inquire as to your response, you are quick with a puppy post.
Well, that means that the on-topic is now the puppies. Those who are asking for more information on whatever boneheaded thing the TSA is doing are all off topic.
Your job is, among other things, to answer questions about the brain-dead activities of your employer. This is a sure-fire way to never do that.
RB Asked...
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
TSORon answered
Because another individual out there has the same name she does, and that person's name is on the list.
Its a pretty simple concept RB.
I gave that answer once. Some TSO said "there are no children on the no fly list" and I answered "That's right, it's only a list of name. There are no people on the list, only names. There could only be people on the list if they printed it out and someone stood on the printout."
I was told by that TSO that I was wrong, that it's not just a list of names. I think it was HappyToHinder. So, Ron, are you sure it is just a list of names?
For the past year or more, I really miss the TSA Wait Time Calculator which I found very useful.
I check it periodically hoping for an update, but it still say it's under construction. Any news on this, either as end user interface or as a web service?
Thanks in advance.
Ayn R. Key said…
“I was told by that TSO that I was wrong, that it's not just a list of names. I think it was HappyToHinder. So, Ron, are you sure it is just a list of names?”
The no fly list is not just a list of names, as confirmed by Timothy J. Healy, Director of Terrorist Screening Center Federal Bureau of Investigation. Placement on the no-fly list requires two components: sufficient biographical information and sufficient derogatory information. They have also confirmed that there are no children on the no-fly and selectee lists as outlined in a previous blog post. No need to bring up people sitting on pieces of paper though the comedy factor is appreciated. :)
Tim
TSA Blog Team
HappyToHelp said...
Ayn R. Key said…
“I was told by that TSO that I was wrong, that it's not just a list of names. I think it was HappyToHinder. So, Ron, are you sure it is just a list of names?”
The no fly list is not just a list of names, as confirmed by Timothy J. Healy, Director of Terrorist Screening Center Federal Bureau of Investigation. Placement on the no-fly list requires two components: sufficient biographical information and sufficient derogatory information. They have also confirmed that there are no children on the no-fly and selectee lists as outlined in a previous blog post. No need to bring up people sitting on pieces of paper though the comedy factor is appreciated. :)
Tim
TSA Blog Team
July 20, 2010 1:09 AM
..............
If a person is to dangerous to fly then why are they not to dangerous to be allowed in public?
The NFL is so UN-AMERICAN in concept that it boggles the mind.
If these people are breaking some law then have them charged so they may face their accusers.
Why is DHS/TSA working against the Constitution of the United States?
In the news are reports of very slow checkpoints all around the country where the Strip Search machines have been installed. Even people going through the Porno-Viewers are often getting pat downs. Along with people having to have their personal papers and money out of their control.
Seems to me that TSA's Porno Viewers are more a hinderance to effective screening than moving the process forward not to mention the unsettled questions of screening minors in this manner.
Anonymous said...
"Try opening your eyes and ears and following the rules and we won't have to yell!"
So TSA is saying it is OK to yell at the "highly trained" TSO who don't know the rules
July 7, 2010 2:39 PM
I see what you did there... You're one cleaver lad...
RB said...
A question asked and gone unanswered;
What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?
Would a bottle larger than 100 ml not be exempted since it is a medically required liquid?
July 8, 2010 10:48 AM
Dang it RB, I'll put this topic to rest you you can complain about another pointless question... The brand of contact solution you mention doesnt usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So theres not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied? Nevermind...
Anonymous said...
Dang it RB, I'll put this topic to rest you you can complain about another pointless question... The brand of contact solution you mention doesnt usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So theres not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied? Nevermind...
July 20, 2010 2:15 PM
Anon, I take it you work for TSA.
It shows!
Anonymous said...
Dang it RB, I'll put this topic to rest you you can complain about another pointless question... The brand of contact solution you mention doesnt usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So theres not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied? Nevermind...
July 20, 2010 2:15 PM
Anon, I take it you work for TSA.
So, Tim, are you saying that Ron is Wrong?
TSO Tim said:
"sufficient biographical information and sufficient derogatory information. They have also confirmed that there are no children on the no-fly and selectee lists "
So what happened with the 6 year old?
RE TSM Been here's comment Try opening your eyes and ears and following the rules and we won't have to yell!
Given that there's any number of local interpretations and embellishments of the rules, this line of reasoning doesn't hold a single drop of water because "the rules" are partly unknowable.
On top of that, I've been through checkpoints where all kinds of yelling goes on before the passenger has even had the opportunity to break any of the TSA's various rules -- the yelling starts the moment you approach the WTMD.
Assuming the passenger did actually break a rule (like having a [gasp] tube of lip balm that's not in the 3-1-1 bag), what purpose does the yelling serve? Is is some sort of punishment?
If the TSA taught its personnel to address the passengers in a civil manner, we might have a bit of respect for them. As it stands, the yellers come across as a bunch of power tripping jerks.
Google the words "TSA yelling." The results are interesting.
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
Anonymous wrote:
"The brand of contact solution you mention doesnt usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So theres not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied?"
Anonymous, on FT a SCREENER advised to "decant" liquids that won't make it through the magic testing procedure and carry them through in "regulation" sized containers in the baggie.
Certainly is easy enough to do with Clear Care.
RB, it seems the TSA's sniffers can't detect percentage of H2O2 in a container so it is all confiscated, whether it's 3% or 93%. A terrible, terrible waste.
@Anon: "Dang it RB, I'll put this topic to rest you you can complain about another pointless question... The brand of contact solution you mention doesnt usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So theres not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied? Nevermind..."
Well Anon, so what happens when a person's hands alarm on the ETD because they use a hand lotion with glycerin or shoes alarm because they were walking thru a recently fertilized yard/golf course/pasture? Do you cut off their hands or take their shoes and send them on their merry way? No, they get thru some how. The screener asks what it was, the pax tells them, and TSA says ok and lets them thru after a secondary.
So why is it not a big deal in those instances but when someone brings contact solution thru and tells the screener that's what it is, it's not ok? You don't know if what the pax says is true in any of those instances. Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways, anon.
Earl
so many people!!
I am writing this blog regarding the hiring practices of the TSA with hope the issues I have faced will be corrected and no individual will have to go through the unfortunate and unfair course of events I have faced seeking employment with this agency. After months of correspondence with Congressman Shock’s staff, representatives of TSA , and liaisons within the legislative branch of our government it appears the inquiries from his office ,at my request, along with my many inquiries directly to the TSA to correct inconsistencies and incorrect information may have brought about what may be the worst possible outcome not only for myself but for any person standing up for their rights for equal opportunity .This information stream is what all candidates should monitor, as I did, to insure the process in place is working. I have, over months, provided documentation supporting the claim and illustrating the failure of TSA to process information in a timely basis insuring at least an equal opportunity for positions that are considered in high demand.
Today a conversation with a staff member from Congressman Shock’s office revealed what I consider very disappointing and disturbing news. According to the staff member a conversation with a liaison for legislative affairs commented about my recent conversations with members of the contracted call center representing TSA. I will start by stating that as a child of a father who dedicated his life to the Armed Forces securing our rights I learned at an early age to respect people .It was also instilled in me at an early age there is a distinction between respecting another and allowing yourself to be disrespected and your rights to be trampled.
The recent conversations with call center employees for TSA involved TSA employees talking over me as I tried to explain the changes in the Candidate Dashboard platform, an internet site to monitor a candidates progress through the hiring process, and my disagreement with the information they were presenting. Although I described the documentation clearly illustrating the errors, simply put, they were not willing to listen to me and as I tried to explain myself it was clear the conversations were not going anywhere that day. I ended those conversations politely and contacted Congressman’s Shock’s office to offer the documentation illustrating the errors I had encountered. Curiously, it seems, these calls have somehow made it to the top in the chain of command of TSA according to Congressman Shock’s office whereas months of effort by Congressman Shock’s office to correct the problems just could not seem to get there.
Apparently, a liaison stated The Director for the Transportation Security Administration has heard of the issues regarding the inquiries and acknowledged the Director of the Transportation Security Administration is now familiar with my name in association with the issues I have brought forth and has personally shed a shadow of negativity over my reputation and most certainly my opportunities now and in the future to secure a position with TSA. “The Director knows who he is and that’s not good”, would fairly reiterate the words from the staff member as told to me by a member of Congressman Shock’s office. One would hope the Director would have at least objectively viewed the documentation and history of the problems, investigated the facts we have diligently tried to bring forth and work through before making his assumption and one can only hope the liaison has spoken out of turn.
In a leadership position, such as the Director of the Transportation Security Administration, one would hope an individual’s effort to correct what has been done and protect their rights for equal opportunity would be valued not condemned.
Why is the TSA selecting 12-year old girls to go through the strip-search scanners?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/airport-body-scanners-reveal-all-but-what-about-when-its-your-kid/1109659
Is there any psychological testing giver to TSO's to determine if they are child pornographers(like the screener from LAX)?
http://cbs2.com/goldstein/TSA.Screener.Child.2.1471579.html
Anonymous said...
RB said...
A question asked and gone unanswered;
What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?
Would a bottle larger than 100 ml not be exempted since it is a medically required liquid?
July 8, 2010 10:48 AM
Dang it RB, I'll put this topic to rest you you can complain about another pointless question... The brand of contact solution you mention doesn't usually make it through the Checkpoint because it alarms the liquid testing equipment. So there's not way to clear the liquid since it alarmed, thus its not allowed. Satisfied? Nevermind...
July 20, 2010 2:15 PM
............
OK, Clear Care brand contact lens solution alarms TSA's high technology chemical testers.
Doesn't this bother anyone?
That TSA cannot distinguish between a perfectly harmless medical liquid and one that is hazardous?
Isn't this like using an atomic bomb to kill a single fly?
How much do these testers cost that cannot distinguish between harmless items and those that are not harmless? How much tax money has TSA wasted on these devices? As much as the non-functional puffers that TSA tossed in the trash?
Who at TSA is responsible for purchase decisions? A name and office please!
Anonymous said...
I am writing this blog regarding the hiring practices of the TSA with hope the issues I have faced will be corrected and no individual will have to go through the unfortunate and unfair course of events I have faced seeking employment with this agency.
....... snipped a whole lot.....
In a leadership position, such as the Director of the Transportation Security Administration, one would hope an individual’s effort to correct what has been done and protect their rights for equal opportunity would be valued not condemned.
July 21, 2010 9:22 PM
Anon, I would suggest that TSA has done you a favor by roadblocking your application process. TSA is the worst agency to work for, as graded by its on employees, save one other agency in the whole of United States government.
However, if someone in TSA has unfairly blocked your applicatoin process then I would suggest contacting a lawyer. Make TSA answer why they discriminated against you under oath.
Anonymous said...
Why is the TSA selecting 12-year old girls to go through the strip-search scanners?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/airport-body-scanners-reveal-all-but-what-about-when-its-your-kid/1109659
Is there any psychological testing giver to TSO's to determine if they are child pornographers(like the screener from LAX)?
http://cbs2.com/goldstein/TSA.Screener.Child.2.1471579.html
July 22, 2010 3:13 AM
.....................
All the TSA employees have to do is check the "Perv" box on the employment forms.
“The Director knows who [that person]is and that’s not good”"
Anon, is the director referred to the old boss, or the new boss?
...and posts quoting lyrics from the Who would be so obvious that they would be lame and show that the poster is unimaginative and boring.
"so many people!!"
???
Was a lot of that post redacted?
I love that you have created this post so people can talk about off-topic items. But perhaps a forum would be better format for this?
Thanks for updating us on the amputee story.
TSA at Work.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/hudac1.1.1.html
TSA, is it a joke?
http://www.spastle.com/palantir/index.php?p=75&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
"Anon, I would suggest that TSA has done you a favor by roadblocking your application process. TSA is the worst agency to work for, as graded by its on employees, save one other agency in the whole of United States government."
Just wondering; which one rates worse than TSA?
Ayn R. Key said…
“So, Tim, are you saying that Ron is Wrong?”
Ron never claimed the list is only names. He only said that the girl shares a name with someone on the list. I’m not sure why you’re making such a logical leap. Take Ron’s words for what they are. I can do it. You can do it. I believe in you. If you need clarification from Ron, just ask him.
Anonymous said...
“So what happened with the 6 year old?”
Fox news reported two responses.
FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigations in Cleveland will confirm that a list exists, but for national security reasons, no one will discuss who is on the list or why.
TSA
According to the Transportation Security Administration, Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, "the watch lists are an important layer of security to prevent individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorism from flying."
The family can still fly with their daughter, but check in will take much longer.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
I too am astonished that the TSA cannot distinguish Clear Care solution, which is used on contact lenses that are put in human eyes, from explosives.
There are people who need to use particular brands on solution. The TSA has to find a way to distinguish both or, better still, stop with the theatrics.
The family can still fly with their daughter, but check in will take much longer.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
July 23, 2010 2:42 PM
Tim, if no children are on the Watch List as claimed by TSA then why would check in take longer for this 6 year old?
Claiming that check in will take longer confirms that a 6 year old is in fact on the list.
@H2H: The fact that we're expected to take such doublespeak from the authorities saddens me. The fact that you say "the family can still check in, it will just take much longer", like it's a positive result, saddens me even more.
What has happened to this country in the past 9 years?
The family can still fly with their daughter, but check in will take much longer.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
------------------------------------
Why doesn't Secure Flight solve the problem?
The girl is 6 years old! The NFL is suppose to contain data as to the age of the person. Secure Flight is suppose to resolve these conflicts.
Why didn't it work?
Just wondering; which one rates worse than TSA?
FEMA
Anonymous said...
"Anon, I would suggest that TSA has done you a favor by roadblocking your application process. TSA is the worst agency to work for, as graded by its on employees, save one other agency in the whole of United States government."
Just wondering; which one rates worse than TSA?
July 23, 2010 1:42 PM
.........................
Good news for TSA.
I just found ratings for 2009 and TSA improved all the way up to 213 of 216.
http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/overall/sub
Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, "
Tim
TSA Blog Team
-----------------------------------
So as an Official TSA Spokesman, you are stating that Secure Flight doesn't work, and in this case made the situation worse.
WOW!
Anon sez - "
???
Was a lot of that post redacted?"
Nope, published as it came in. Blogger does not allow for modification of the comments as they come in. To publish or not to publish, that is the (only) question.
West
TSA Blog Team
The family can still fly with their daughter, but check in will take much longer.
------------------------
Or TSA could send out a memo to airlines and employees reminding then that no children are on the NFL and no children should be treated as if they are. But that would be too easy, right?
Here's a checkpoint/ID question. My state-issued driver's license is currently under suspension. Will I be able to pass the checkpoint? If so, how? Or, should I just say I forgot my ID?
Bob
care to address the situation at ELP (el paso) airport where access to the WTMD has been blocked and only using the Nude-o-scopes being used. This is very contrary to what you have posted repeatedly here.
Is this case mistaken or is TSA lying to the public yet again.
If this isnt posted and addressed this complaint will be filed with the appropriate congress types and other government offices.
This is a violation of the 4th amendment and goes we beyond the reasonableness factor in the administrative search guidelines as defined by multiple court cases.
as for the case of the 12 year old girl thats a clear case of consent not being sought, as only the child parents can give consent, friends of the family does not count in being able to give consent. Your talking about massive rights violations here. If your average joe did what this govt employee did they would be raked over the coals in court and labeled as a pervert and pedophile. I hope the girls family decides to go after TSA as its a one sided case and TSA can defend its actions. just another example how tsa employees are not "high;y trained professionals", and is not a "isolated incident" but yet more of the pattern of behavior by TSA with no accountability.
TSA Delinda Est
Does SJU have unique rules? They never bothered to have me remove my shoes and they did not swab my cpap.
Blew another one, didn't you TSA?
From court decision in Boniface vs. DHS/TSA:
"The Court cannot say whether Boniface is entitled to a waiver of the TSA's regulation deeming him a security risk; that is for the agency to determine. I can say, however, that he was entitled to an administrative process that was not riddled with errors. The Keystone Kops might have done a better job than did the TSA in this case. Instead of sending Government counsel into battle to defend the indefensible, the agency should have long ago confessed error, apologized to the appellant, and tried to do right by him."
"riddled with errors"
"Keystone Kops"
"should have long ago confessed error"
SOP for TSA - and I'm laughing myself silly.
The family can still fly with their daughter, but check in will take much longer.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
------------------------------------
For the umpteenth time: why can't TSA simply send out a memo pointing out that no child should be treated as if they are on the No Fly List (or any other list that doesn't include children)? What would be so difficult about that? Why should the burden be on this child's family to show up for every flight much earlier?
Also, why was my last post to this effect blocked? It did not violate any of the rules.
Hey Bob,
Just another reminder that we are still waiting on an answer from the TSA on that extensive article in the top scientific journal Nature saying there is no scientific basis for the SPOT program.
As long as you continue to ignore it, I will continue to annoy you.
Hey, Bob - where's the post in which Judge Ginsberg (US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia) was quoted calling TSA "Keystone Kops?" Are you censoring quotes from the Federal judiciary?
Boniface vs. Department of Homeland Security
Interesting. A post containing info already published here was banned.
Let me try again.
About this liquid stuff.
I stopped taking my freedom baggie out of my carry on over a year ago. I have not been called out over it yet.
It has been noted in other blogs that other flyers have had the same experience.
I try to keep a good attitude about the TSA.
Things like this don't make it easy.
Originally posted, 6 July 2010: no answer from TSA.
The TSA has signs at airports and announcements in airports about no amounts of liquids or gels over three ounces, when the actual, legal, authorized amount is 100 milliliters,or 3.4 ounces. The TSA, as stated on this blog, has no intention of correcting these signs which provide misinformation.
So, I asked before, and I'll ask again. What am I supposed to do when I show up at a TSA security check point with my food in LEGAL 3.4 ounce / 100 milliliter containers, and some ill-trained or officious TSO points to these incorrect signs and tells me I have to throw my food out?
Call the supervisor? Yes, and then what do I do when the supervisor points to those same signs and tells me to throw my food out?
Call the air port manager? Right, and when S/HE points to the signs and tells me to throw my food out?
My food is medically required. It cannot be replaced in the secure area.
I intend to follow the CORRECT INFORMATION AS POSTED on both this blog and the TSA web site.
But tell me, why do I have to print out half your web site and carry it with me, and jump through hoops because the TSA will not provide the correct information to the public and its own officers?
And, once again, how do I keep a TSO from endangering my health and endangering my freedom to travel because they don't know the rules and the TSA won't post the correct rules in the airports?
@Bubba: Also, did you know that there are medications, such as beta-blockers, that inhibit the symptoms of nervousness?
Beta blockers are commonly prescribed for conditions such as high blood pressure. Does TSA allow people who take beta blockers to fly?
'Travelers Allowed to Board Flight After Positive Test for Explosives
TSA agents say two passengers with casts tested positive for traces of explosives
By GRANT STINCHFIELD
Updated 10:30 PM CDT, Wed, Jul 28, 2010
Transportation Security Administration agents say two incidents at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on Tuesday night exposed a flaw in airport security.
Sources within the TSA and DFW Airport Police said agents found small traces of explosives on the arm casts of two people in two different terminals. Both travelers were allowed to board their flights.
TSA agents say they have no way of looking underneath casts if travelers test positive for traces of explosives.
DFW Airport does not own a portable CastScope, which is designed to scan a cast. The device is only used in a handful of airports across the country.
The airport's new whole-body scanners can see through a cast, but the scanners are only at two of DFW's security checkpoints.
"They don't have adequate equipment and, because of that, security is no better today then it was on September 10th, 2001," aviation security consultant Denny Kelly said."
Can someone at TSA explain how a WBI Strip Search Machine can see through a cast but not penetrate skin?
If the energy emitted by Backscatter X-ray screening devices can penetrate a cast then these x-rays are clearly dangerous to the public, not to mention the unprotected TSA employee standing by the machines.
I take it TSA considers these employees expendable.
I have seen the question asked many times about who BB reports to.
Seems to me it must be this person.
Kristin Lee
Assistant Administrator for Strategic Communications and Public Affairs
Evidence?
Blogger Bob
Hi, I'm Bob, and I started with the TSA in September 2002. I worked at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) for 5 years and am currently residing at TSA headquarters. I started as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO), and have since been promoted to a Management Analyst with the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs.
So if you want to write BBs boss have at it.
There are reports that at Boston and El Paso the WTMD have been shut down at some gates and the only option is AIT.
Reports are also indicating that passengers asking to opt out are being told they can't
What is going on?
gsoltso, I just have to say how amused I am with the irony of your tag line over at flyertalk.com.
"Fear profits a man nothing."
This from a member of an organization who so often defends their actions using fear. "We have to do things this way or people could die."
Thanks for the lulz.
This comment applies at many airports, specifically ORD terminal 3.
I would like the TSA to provide some training in how to interact with people without pissing them off to the designated shouter. You all know them, they are the guys who are posted outside the security gates whose job it is to shout at us about shoes on the belt, shoes in the basket, PCs out of the bag, etc.
I understand how hard this job is, shouting at people and treating them like moronic garbage can't possible be easy.
This week on Thursday afternoon, the designated shouter took the easy way out. Instead of shouting the rules at the people who might actually benefit from the regular line, he came over to the frequent flyer line to shout at those of us that fly at least twice a week and know the rules better than he does.
Instead of treating us like the enemy, they might try to be helpful, friendly, sincere. They should try to make a very unpleasant experience (I certainly don't enjoy having my conctitional rights trampled!) at least tolerable.
So if you want to write BBs boss have at it.
July 29, 2010 3:10 PM
Speaking of BB when will he be back?
Why isn't this thread the second anymore?
And why are you STILL ignoring the in depth article in the top scientific journal Nature saying there is no science behind the SPOT program?
Bob--
1) Please keep this thread permanently pinned at number two.
2) Please update us on TSAs response to the nature article. Are you still waiting to hear back from the experts or have you just decided that their answers aren't worthy of a post?
Thanks.
Here's an interestng little article putting the lie - again - to TSA's claims about the body scan machines. Seems that not only can they store the scans and send them to other places, but that some federal agencies have been doing it for a while.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
So you guys lied about the body scanners being unable to store images huh?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
Care to explain your lies? Also, care to explain why we should believe ANYthing you say when your naked contempt for the people whose taxes pay your salaries is so obvious..?
I would first like to remind everybody that the US Marshall Service falls under the DOJ and not DHS, so I can't speak for them regarding the storage of images on their Advanced Imaging Technology.
However, I can tell you this.
TSA has not and will not store images.
All imaging technology machines are delivered to airports for operational use without the capability to store, print or transmit images. There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into a mode to retain images.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"However, I can tell you this.
TSA has not and will not store images."
Why on earth should we believe you? You've been dishonest about strip-search technology from day one. Why would you pick now to start telling the truth?
And what about the Nature article?
And the forced strip searches in El Paso?
And the name and number of your supervisor?
"There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into a mode to retain images."
No way?
Bob, the only way for that statement to be true would be if any hardware relating to storage were physically removed from the machine before it is placed in the airport.
Please tells us, is all hardware relating to storage physically removed from the machine?
If not, please explain why you believe the statement you have made to us is true.
Thanks.
"And the name and number of your supervisor?"
Sheeesh. Enough with that crap, please.
Get real. You are not serious about it. It has been posted on this blog more than once. It is in a recent post now. It can be easily found on the web.
If you really wanted to use that info you would have used it and stopped this grandstanding.
So, TSA strip search machine policy is that the devices don't and will not store images today. Lemme guess, if you change your policy, the public will be the last to know....
It has been nearly a year since I last visited this blog. I am disappointed but not surprised to discover that nothing has changed. The same people are asking the same questions, including the same complaints about not receiving a response. They must be masochists. But then, anyone who chooses to fly these days must be a masochist.
I had quit reading this blog because it was just too frustrating. But having just read the GAO report on SPOT, curiosity overrode common sense. I couldn't resist looking up the official TSA spin on the GAO audit. Blogger Bob did not disappoint with his cheery post about "SPOT still going strong." I have to compliment him on his thoroughly artistic approach to Standard TSA Approach to All Criticism.
He's not content to merely ignore or dismiss it. He puts the happiest face on it and offers us the cheerful suggestion that we also not let the silly little report harsh our mellow. Blogger Bob says SPOT is effective, and that clearly should carry far more weight than any sour grapes from GAO auditors, or the irrelevant Nature magazine. We all need to maintain our pure, simple faith in the TSA. I guess a detailed, highly critical report that shines a most unflattering light behind the curtain of secrecy really does demand an extra dose of happy pills to spin it away.
I have to give even more credit to the authors of the GAO report for their superhuman tact. I get the distinct impression that they struggled mightily to avoid writing something like "The SPOT program is nothing more than hot air and lawn-fertilizer. The TSA have spent billions of dollars on this worthless fraud, with nothing to show for it but the arrests of a few illegal aliens and drug smugglers who pose no threat to aircraft and have connection with terrorism. Taxpayers should call their Congressmen this instant and demand that they put an end to this shameful boondoggle toot sweet." Of course they didn't say that. But that's pretty much the conclusion a reader inevitably would draw.
I also have to give Extra Chutzpah Points to the DHS bureaucrats who wrote the response to the GAO. They spend most of their time defending the SPOT program and its "science." And their evasive and weasel-worded "concurrence" with the recommendations made it very clear they had no intention of doing anything and were telling the GAO to go fly a kite.
Yes. We can always count on the TSA to respond to any criticism by ignoring it or spinning it away. That's how their highly effective security evolves.
Why is this thread not in second place, again??
And I´m still waiting for the answer to the Nature article debunking the SPOT program.
If you have a complaint why not offer a different option, one that doesnt say just do away with it but a real alternative.
Bubba asked, "Why is this thread not in second place, again??"
a.) Because it's in third place.
b.) It's part of a vast s3ckr3t conspiracy.
c.) Just to personally aggravate you.
d.) It doesn't really matter as long as its above the fold.
e.) Are you sure its not in second?
e.) All of the above.
f.) None of the above.
I have to wonder why DHS and TSA is actively engaged in a campaign to undermine and destroy the United States Constitution.
TSA designated United States currency as contraband which implied anyone with resources is a criminal, but no due process was applied.
We have DHS/TSA with various lists of names commonly called No Fly List that subject people to restrictions on their freedoms but DHS/TSA does not provide due process required by our form of government. If a person is to dangerous to fly should not the evidence be brought before a court before a person is penalized?
We have TSA administrative searches required to use commercial transportation systems that are suppose to be no more invasive than required to find WEI but now TSA has escalated those searches to a full whole body electronic Strip Searches. Even children and teenagers are being treated to this very invasive form of search and refusing that gets one a full body pat down, just like a criminal going to jail gets.
So the choice is either have some person viewing your naked body or feeling you up.
Friends, this is not the America I spent a career in the military defending. It more resembles governments like the old USSR and Red China, certainly not free societies.
I call on all patriots to disengage association from TSA.
TSA violated my daughter's civil rights. TSA says they do not separate children from parents and also they don't separate service animals from their partners but in our case BOTH happened yesterday at Reagan National Airport. (8-4-10) What happened to my daughter who was traveling in a Convaid Wheelchair stroller with her service animal Grizwald was separated from us and my older daughter was told not to touch her - I was also told not to touch her.
I told the agents she was a trauma victim and was told I needed to check my tone. One agent in a cavalier voice said, "Oh She's OK" -- No she wasn't and now this little incident caused by a total lack of common sense will cause us the inability to fly probably for the next year -- we are going to have to systematically desensitize her to their invasive and insensitive process.
All of this and we were not even boarding a plane but had gate passes to take a friend of my older daughter's to the airport.
Please feel free to read my entire statement here:
http://inciid.blogspot.com/2010/08/tsa-violates-10-year-old-child-at.html
We have contacted Senator Jim Webb's office to work with us to find out what can be done.
What happened to my daughter was traumatic for our entire family but especially for her - she doesn't recover easily.
TSA, when will the ELP not honoring OPT OUTS be addressed?
I don't know if this question will get answered but I am traveling with a child this weekend and am confused about the liquid rule. I understand I can bring reasonable quantities of breast milk, formula or juice for the flight, but can i bring a juice box of milk?
Post a Comment