Lynn’s husband asked a question similar to this after a recent trip, and we also get this question from people on the blog:“When I’m going past the checkpoint, I see a group of officers standing over to the side. What are they doing? “
Maybe it’s happened to you, too: you’re in the line waiting go to through the checkpoint and you see a large group of officers near the checkpoint standing around and talking. Your first thought is probably “why in the heck don’t they use these officers to open more lanes?”
Are they trying to figure out how many officers it takes to change a light bulb? Are they getting ready to make a human pyramid? Nope…
The most likely reason is that it’s time for a shift change. Officers receive an in-brief and out-brief at the beginning and end of their shifts. During the course of a day, officers on the same shift are routinely assigned different tasks and are never in the same place at the same time. These two occasions are opportune times to get the entire shift together and disseminate important information and assign tasks for the day etc. This is a time when officers can communicate with their supervisors and managers and bring things to light. This is when critical intelligence is shared or information relating to an FBI BOLO or Amber Alert is distributed.
Sometimes these briefings take place in rooms outside of the public view and other times there just isn’t any space at a particular airport and briefings have to be conducted in a public area.
There can also be other reasons for smaller groups of officers to convene at the checkpoint.
Officers are sent to breaks and lunches in groups and before they return to duty, they usually meet near the checkpoint to wait for a lead or supervisor to give them their next assignment.
We also have teams of officers sent to various locations to randomly screen airport employees. Even if nobody is being screened, officers need to stay at this location for a specific period of time.
Officers also frequently use cell phones to communicate in larger airports where radios might not reach everywhere. So while it may look like an officer is making a personal call, they are in fact doing their job. Use of personal cell phones while on duty is not permitted.
We understand it’s human nature to assume folks are just doing nothing, but in a public job like this one, our officers are like the gold fish in the bowl swimming around for everyone to see. Everything they do is open to a different interpretation by each passenger. I just wanted to give you a few explanations to clear things up.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
123 comments:
Thanks for clearing that up, Bob. I'm sure many people wonder why they're waiting in line for a TSA search, seemingly because the checkpoint is understaffed, when some TSA staff are standing around nearby, not performing searches.
About 10 weeks ago, in the "Just Back from BWI - A Thanksgiving Checkpoint Report" post, Paul described his experiences working at a BWI TSA checkpoint, and Lynn later said he'd made a mistake in his post. Despite repeated requests for an update, neither of them have done so. We're really curious about the situation Paul blogged. Could someone please respond to my questions about the post?
Also, although we've repeatedly been told that we should learn the rules you require us to follow at your checkpoints, you at TSA continue to tell us that we will not be allowed to fly if we have liquids portioned into containers larger than 3 fluid ounces, that the limit is 3.4 fluid ounces, and that no liquids are allowed but exceptions are made. Some TSA luggage inspectors insist that liquids are limited by weight, not by volume. You've never explained how volumes or weights of liquids will be measured, and under what circumstances you will simply trust a marking on a container that purports to describe the volume of the container.
Most recently, EoS reader RB received the following response from the TSA Contact Center:
"Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
"Air carriers are responsible for identifying passengers, controlling passengers to checkpoints, controlling gate access, and controlling baggage before and after screening. TSA employees are responsible for all passenger and baggage screening to ensure that prohibited items are not placed on board aircraft. TSA consults regularly with its various partners to effectively integrate their respective security responsibilities.
"Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts.
"Passengers traveling on an international flight from Europe or other foreign countries into the United States, the 3.4 oz containers in the zip lock bag will be accepted in carry on and will not be confiscated at the checkpoint.
"Those passengers traveling from the United States into a foreign country or traveling on a domestic flight within the United States must carry the 3.0 oz containers as carry on in a zip lock bag.
"We encourage you to visit our website at www.tsa.gov for additional information about TSA. We continue to add new information and encourage you to check the website frequently for updated information.
"TSA Contact Center"
Could you please comment on this continued misinformation?
Could you please just publish the rules you require us to follow so that we can avoid all the confusion? You really can't expect us to follow your rules when you refuse to show them to us.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Bob, let's answer some real questions.
"TSA Contact Center"
Could you please comment on this continued misinformation?
Could you please just publish the rules you require us to follow so that we can avoid all the confusion? You really can't expect us to follow your rules when you refuse to show them to us.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 18, 2009 4:49 PM
....................
Thanks Phil, I welcome your voice to my choir.
Bob, and others, isn't about time to address the missing rules problem?
You know this isn't going away just because you bury your heads in the sand.
RB Said...
"You know this isn't going away just because you bury your heads in the sand."
Or because they post inane columns like this one.
Please, I appreciate this blog for the potential that it has. Address real issues please.
Bob-on the list of 'Why' that I, & many, many others have re: the TSA, screeners standing around isn't at the top of it. Quite frankly, if they're standing around, they're not harassing passengers & making up their own rules while doing it, so I, personally, have no problem w/them standing around.
While we're on the subject of questions you've ignored, could you please explain Kip-the-Departed's comments to '60 Minutes' in December about 2 passengers of 'interest' being on planes 'right now!!'-how it happened, despite your much vaunted security layers & what was done about it after they, & the planes they were on, presumably landed w/o incident?
If they compile a list of rules for passengers to follow then I doubt that will be good enough for most readers on this blog.
-James
Do you guys realize that there are different officers on xray? Officer interpretation will differ from person to person. What one officer may clear another one may threat and thus you are waiting for your bag to be searched. A list of rules will not help with this. I read signs in an airport that only laptops, dvd players, video cameras, and CPAPs need to come out of the bag, but at some airports they make me take out hard drives and CD ROMs and PSP video game. There is only interpretation of officers not being as accurate on xray and threating anything they don't feel comfortable with.
-James
"Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
"Air carriers are responsible for identifying passengers, controlling passengers to checkpoints, controlling gate access, and controlling baggage before and after screening. TSA employees are responsible for all passenger and baggage screening to ensure that prohibited items are not placed on board aircraft. TSA consults regularly with its various partners to effectively integrate their respective security responsibilities.
"Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts.
"Passengers traveling on an international flight from Europe or other foreign countries into the United States, the 3.4 oz containers in the zip lock bag will be accepted in carry on and will not be confiscated at the checkpoint.
"Those passengers traveling from the United States into a foreign country or traveling on a domestic flight within the United States must carry the 3.0 oz containers as carry on in a zip lock bag.
"We encourage you to visit our website at www.tsa.gov for additional information about TSA. We continue to add new information and encourage you to check the website frequently for updated information.
"TSA Contact Center"
Could you please comment on this continued misinformation?
I think there is a lot of information in different places for TSA to update. Someone did not do their job and update the automatic response you get from an email. Reading it makes it seem like an automatic response. So the TSA just needs to update their information so it is uniformed. The rule is 3.4 oz and I myself know that so when I fly I take 3.4 oz stuff. No one has given me grief. Sometimes I get by with 4 oz but know if it is caught it will be taken from me.
Shouldn't your officers shift briefs in private?
James wrote:
"If they compile a list of rules for passengers to follow then I doubt that will be good enough for most readers on this blog."
James, regardless of whether you think readers of this blog would be satisfied by TSA's publication of all the rules they require us to follow in order to avoid having our freedom of movement restricted at their checkpoints (just their rules, not all the others that apply inside and outside of their checkpoints) it is dangerous for us to allow them not to do so, and it is completely unacceptable that they refuse to do so.
Until TSA tells us very specifically what we're required to do at the checkpoints they have erected so that TSA staff, we, our attorneys, and judges know whether or not we are in compliance, TSA are in effect operating tiny islands of police states at our airports (and increasingly, at locations outside of airports), where TSA staff act as legislator, police, prosecutor, judge, and jailer.
For the good of our freedom, we must not allow ourselves to be held responsible for violating rules and regulations that we are not allowed to see.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
"TSA Contact Center"
Could you please comment on this continued misinformation?
Could you please just publish the rules you require us to follow so that we can avoid all the confusion? You really can't expect us to follow your rules when you refuse to show them to us.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 18, 2009 4:49 PM
....................
Thanks Phil, I welcome your voice to my choir.
Bob, and others, isn't about time to address the missing rules problem?
You know this isn't going away just because you bury your heads in the sand.
___________________________________
OMG really, are we still talking about this!
To the blog team and anyone this concerns, I believe that the tsa web page gives people more than enough information. I am not even sure what more it is that they want.
Anonymous #542 said...
"Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
I think there is a lot of information in different places for TSA to update. Someone did not do their job and update the automatic response you get from an email. Reading it makes it seem like an automatic response. So the TSA just needs to update their information so it is uniformed. The rule is 3.4 oz and I myself know that so when I fly I take 3.4 oz stuff. No one has given me grief. Sometimes I get by with 4 oz but know if it is caught it will be taken from me.
February 19, 2009 11:50 AM
......................The problem is that with misinformation on the TSA website, Information for Travelers, misinformation on the TSA Blog and misinformation from the TSA Contact Center I really do not believe that TSA has a defined liquids rule.
To me it doesn't matter if it is 1oz, 3oz or 50oz's. A responsible agency would state the policy that will be enforced so consumers of those services provided would know what was expected of them.
Anonymous James said...
Do you guys realize that there are different officers on xray? Officer interpretation will differ from person to person.
.........................
Here again is the problem of not having a set of rules. If a process is well defined and people implementing these processes are well trained then the room for interpertation is taken out of the problem.
In both cases above, rules for travelers and rules for employees it is apparent that TSA has failed in its duties of building an agency that is accountable.
Bob and others can argue all they want but the fact of the matter is that TSA as an agency is a failure.
A wiser individual than I once told me 'A conversation only works when both sides listen to the other.'
RB said...
Here again is the problem of not having a set of rules. If a process is well defined and people implementing these processes are well trained then the room for interpertation is taken out of the problem.
That is where you are incorrect. People see things different. They have different brains. Until the xray they use is automated then searches will be interpreted differently. Live with it, I do.
-James
In response to my and others' repeated request that TSA show us the rules it requires us to follow, someone anonymously wrote:
"I believe that the tsa web page gives people more than enough information."
There is no such thing as "the TSA Web page." TSA has many pages which together comprise its WEb site. I'll assume that this person was referring to the entire site, not that he or she believes that there is only one TSA Web page.
That site is incomplete, inconsistent with rules communicated elsewhere by TSA, and internally inconsistent. We have cited numerous examples of this here on the TSA blog over the past year. Bob and Lynn have specifically acknowledged mistakes on the Web site. See comments for the "You won’t be put on a TSA `List' if you forget Your ID" post (Bob's comment and my response) and the "Information on the Chicago Aircraft Inspections" post (Lynn's comment and my reponse) for examples).
"I am not even sure what more it is that they want."
Then you must not be paying attention. What I and many other people have very clearly stated that we want is for TSA to publish a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint). Note that 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," but that despite repeated requests for an update on his progress, we've heard nothing more about it.
I'm not asking for tips for travelers, suggestions on how to pack our bags, hints, clues, guidelines, or press releases. I'm not asking to see TSA's super-secret procedures (those that thousands of lowest-level-of-TSA airport security guards who turn over at a rate of somewhere around 25% per year, are allowed to see), not a pointer to the entire TSA "guidelines for travelers" page, the entire TSA Web site (filled, as noted here and acknowledged by EoS staff with inconsistencies and inaccuracies), the entire U.S. Government Web, or the whole Internet -- just a list of the rules TSA imposes on travelers at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint.
It is completely unreasonable for TSA to require us to comply with rules it refuses to allow us to read.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
OMG really, are we still talking about this!
To the blog team and anyone this concerns, I believe that the tsa web page gives people more than enough information. I am not even sure what more it is that they want.
February 19, 2009 1:23 PM
...............................
OMG, yes we are!!
And we will continue the discussion until the matter is settled.
Information on the TSA website disagrees with what has been posted here and stated by some of you supposedly well trained TSO's.
If I have to comply with something then I have every reason to know what I must do to be in compliance.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm
There is a nice little flash banner that is playing at the top of the webpage with everything you need to know to get through security. That is the bulk of it I think. In case that is not good enough here is some written things that will be everything you need to know. Ofcoarse this is not all inclusive because things change according to what is going on at the given moment. TSA is not a robot unfortunately.
Tips:
Ensure that your ID is valid and unexpired, and have your ID and boarding pass out and ready.
Pack your carry-on bag neatly to eliminate clutter so we can get a clear look at your bag contents on the X-ray and you can get through security faster.
Take Laptops, DVD players and other larger sized electronic items out of your carry-on to help eliminate clutter and speed up the screening process.
ALL liquids, gels and aerosols MUST be removed from carry-on bags, NO exceptions. ONLY containers 3.4 ounces (100mL) or less are allowed through the screening checkpoint, and they must be placed in ONE 1-quart, zip-top bag. All liquids are okay in checked luggage.
Take off all shoes and coats.
Visit www.tsa.gov for more travel tips.
This is a card that TSA has here at the airport I work at. It has good information on it. Please everyone keep in mind that when you are waiting for screening at an airport, you depend on the person in front of you to move quicker through the security process. If everyone knows what to do and expect then everything is much smoother.
While some information on the website may be wrong. The policy IS 3.4 ounces. There is a lot of good information on the website. The reason the list hasn't been made yet is probably because everything is right there on the website I posted at the top of the comment. Please hash at my post as you see fit I will have comments ready for retaliation :-P
RB wrote...
Here again is the problem of not having a set of rules. If a process is well defined and people implementing these processes are well trained then the room for interpertation is taken out of the problem.
Anonymous James werote
That is where you are incorrect. People see things different. They have different brains. Until the xray they use is automated then searches will be interpreted differently. Live with it, I do.
-James
________________
Sorry, RB, but I have to agree with Anonymous James on this one.
Different people will interpret things differently when seen as x-ray shadow images. I don't have a problem with that, and fully expect it.
Some may be more observant than others, or more curious, I accept that.
I'm not bothered if a x-ray tech sees something that they can't be sure of and requires a physical verification. No problem at all, as that's why they are there.
What DOES bother me is when a physical check is done, and the person making that physical check mis-interprets the rules or makes up their own on-the-spot, and requires the "voluntary surrender" (confiscation) of something that per the published rules is perfectly legitimate and allowed.
X-ray divination is really more an art than a science, and anything that the operator can directly identify actually does need to be checked out. Even just the way things are stacked in the carry-on can make normal objects seem sinister.
(Remember the home-made battery pack with it's connecting wire accidentally under an aluminum water bottle in the grey tray? On x-ray it looked legitimately suspicious and deserved a physical check. It was only the brainless actions after it had been physically checked and OK'd that was a senseless - and should be unlawful - taking of personal property by the government.)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
Phil and RB, yes there is a web page it is TSA.GOV. When I read your posts I cringe. You really don't have anything else to do, do you.
Anonymous said...
OMG really, are we still talking about this!
I think its time we had a logical discussion here on the blog about a rule list. I strongly believe this issue has not received the kind of attention it deserves. I think many here would agree with me.
First, lets me add some middle ground in. I do believe the website needs to be updated and needs a one stop resource or travelers guide. I have seen many from independent websites and I can't see why TSA can't follow suite. I would give examples but my time is short. Sorry.
Also, I will mostly address Phil. I think he is the largest supporter of the rule list and basically is a stand up guy. I will be using the bolding feature for viewability. If a section is CAPITALIZED, I am only trying to highlight not yell at.
I will not be addressing, posting, or commenting on any SSI.
Phil said...
Could you please just publish the rules you require us to follow so that we can avoid all the confusion? You really can't expect us to follow your rules when you refuse to show them to us.
You are right Phil. You can't be expected to follow ALL the rules if you do not know them. I have not seen anyone try to argue that point. I have seen the “just follow the rules post” but I think the reference is to the how-to's, passenger hints, and posted rules on the website.
I know that you only want the rules. You don't want hints, how-to's, and officer procedures(such as the Standard Operating Procedures).
The problem with the above is the rules would not help you Phil. Without officer procedure you would not know how the rule is applied. If you explained how the rule is applied you are going over officer procedure.
Lets go over a example.
The local pool has a sign up with the posted rules. NO horseplay No running No splashing. I will be focusing on the NO splashing rule. You and I know the rules application quite well. When you see a person in the pool pushing water on someone, they are splashing. If you never been to the pool or never knew the definition of splashing, how would the rule help you. So the person decides to ask. The swimmer asks one life guard what the rule is on splashing. The life guard says to the swimmer “don't push water on people in the pool.” The swimmer walks up to another life guard and asks the same question. This life says “do not push water on the people in the pool or around the pool.” Who's right? They both are. The swimmer decides to practice a new stroke and accidentally splashes while performing the new stroke. The life guard does nothing. He is applying the intent of the rule and applying the situation. The end.
Okay, I know this is a bit much but please bare with me. The 311 is a posted rule. Some exceptions of that rule have been posted. Modifications to the rule (such as 3.4oz) has not been posted. Intent of the rule is well known if you pay attention to the AD Counsel. Application and situations are not known to the traveling public.
I don't think a list of rules would help to clear the confusion.
I think what you want Phil is checkpoint laws. Your not interested in rules or regulations. When a police officer pulls you over and gives you a speeding ticket, the officer can point to a exact reference of your infraction.
This is the system you want. Am I wrong? This is static security Phil. Its works fine for Law Enforcement. This is a bad idea for airport security. Airport security needs to be dynamic.
The SOP needs to be flexible. Here is a excerpt from “Toward Risk-Based Aviation Security Policy” (pdf warning)by Robert W. POOLE, Jr. (I chose a paper critical of TSA
The RAND researchers concluded that “the historical record of terrorists efforts to counter
defensive technologies is not encouraging.” They found that “for most technologies, the
groups will adapt to circumvent them,” and the security forces will have to respond. Thus,
technology cannot be “the” solution to terrorism. They recommend that new defensive
technology systems “must be designed with terrorist counter-technology behaviors and past
successes in mind.” In particular, they suggest designing flexibility into defensive
technologies, and frequently testing them against “red teams” trying to get past them.
I know the paper is referring to technology but the same can be applied to the SOP. If the SOP becomes static, you are taking away TSA's ability to make the SOP a useful counter-terrorism tool. Terrorist would just circumvent the rules or bypass them all together (rule exceptions).
Sorry. Due to time constraints, I did not go into as much depth on the subject as I wanted to.
I am looking forward to your response Phil.
-H2H
"Phil and RB...when I read your posts I cringe. You really don't have anything else to do, do you."
I second the cringe factor. I don't see how you are suppose to argue that if a screener sees something illegal, he/she is just suppose to ignore it if it doesn't have to do with terrorism. Why do a "citizen's arrest" when you can just call the airport police and let them deal with it?
And I gotta admit, this post on shift briefs was pretty lightweight and useless.
Someone anonymously wrote:
"yes there is a web page it is TSA.GOV."
That is an Internet domain name, not a Web page. TSA has many Web pages, not one. You're wrong about this, but it doesn't really matter. Please read the references I cited if you're interested in this.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
HappyToHelp wrote:
"I do believe the [TSA] website needs to be updated and needs a one stop resource or travelers guide. I have seen many from independent websites and I can't see why TSA can't follow suite."
I honestly don't care much about the TSA Web site as long as it does not contain inaccurate information. Last time I checked, is did contain inaccurate information.
"You can't be expected to follow ALL the rules if you do not know them. I have not seen anyone try to argue that point."
Many of us argue that point repeatedly. I'll do it again: We cannot be expected to follow the rules if we are not allowed to read them.
"I have seen the “just follow the rules post” but I think the reference is to the how-to's, passenger hints, and posted rules on the website."
If that's the case, the post doesn't make sense. How-to's and hints are not rules.
"The problem with [your desire to see the rules TSA requires you to follow] is the rules would not help you Phil. Without officer procedure you would not know how the rule is applied. If you explained how the rule is applied you are going over officer procedure."
Please explain why you think that me knowing what rules TSA requires me to follow would not be helpful. What do you mean by "how the rule is applied"? It's this simple: You tell me what the rules are, then if I abide by them, you leave me alone, or if I do not, you take appropriate action.
"The local pool has a sign up with the posted rules. NO horseplay No running No splashing.The local pool has a sign up with the posted rules. NO horseplay No running No splashing."
Rules posted at the local pool are hardly equivalent to those that my government requires me to follow in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted. One is enforced by law, and the other is not.
Here's a better example: The maximum speed at which we're allowed to operate a vehicle on some road is 60 miles per hour. If I exceed that speed while driving on the road, I am in violation of that law. If I do not, I am not. The details were written by legislators and are available for anyone to read. If there is any confusion over them, a judge makes a decision. If I have never been on the road or do not understand what "drive" or "miles per hour" means, I can read the law and find out.
"The 311 is a posted rule."
What do you man by "posted rule"? Where is the authoritative source? I don't believe that there is one. A number of conflicting pieces of information have been communicated by TSA.
"When a police officer pulls you over and gives you a speeding ticket, the officer can point to a exact reference of your infraction."
Right. He accuses me of wrongdoing. He, I, my lawyer, a judge, or anyone else can read the rule he has accused me of violating. We can determine if it is constitutional. We can ensure that we abide by it. A judge or jury will decide whether I did, in fact, violate it, and may impose punishment as a result.
TSA makes up rules, judges guilt, and imposes punishment -- with no opportunity for appeal -- on-the-fly. Your staff act as legislator, police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. No checks, no balances, no due process. It is entirely un-American, and it is a danger to our freedom.
I look forward to your responses.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
"LTSO with Answers" referenced TSA's "tips for travelers" page then wrote:
"There is a nice little flash banner that is playing at the top of the webpage with everything you need to know to get through security."
At last!
"That is the bulk of it I think."
Oh.
"In case that is not good enough here is some written things that will be everything you need to know"
At last!
"Of coarse this is not all inclusive"
Oh.
LWA went on to quote some tips we've heard a thousand times.
"ALL liquids, gels and aerosols MUST be removed from carry-on bags, NO exceptions.
That is in direct conflict with what Paul at TSA published in November.
On November 14, 2008, in the comments for the " Family/Special Needs Lanes Coming to All Airports in Time for Thanksgiving Travel" post, Paul of the TSA EoS blog team answered my question:
"Q: In what manner must applicable liquids be presented to a TSA officer?"
By writing (emphasis added):
"A: I'm guessing this question is coming from a fear of TSOs reacting negatively to passengers pulling things out of their carry-on at the checkpoint. There is no official policy on the manner in which you present your medically-necessary liquids, but it would probably be a good idea to give the TSO a heads up before you place your bag on the conveyor belt."
Paul also quoted another question I asked:
"Q: Does handing over to TSA staff all of the belongings we are carrying -- including those which contain liquids -- so that a TSA bag checker can search them qualify as presentation of liquids to a TSA officer as required by the new policy?"
He then answered:
"A: Yes"
LWA, whom should I trust? You? Paul? One page on your Web site? Another page? A sign in an airport with TSA's logo on it? A TSA bag inspector at the airport?
This isn't a matter of being able to swim at the neighborhood pool, you know. If I don't follow your rules, I can't travel within my own country by the only means that is often feasible. If I don't follow your rules, you will either seize my property or restrict my freedom of movement. Let's not take this lightly.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Phil said...
I honestly don't care much about the TSA Web site as long as it does not contain inaccurate information. Last time I checked, is did contain inaccurate information.
You not caring about the website shows Phil :) Are you referencing the 311? If Bob's explanation on that issue isn't good enough(“Path forward on liquids ***Update 10/27/08***) then were at a fork in the road.
Phil said...
Many of us argue that point repeatedly. I'll do it again: We cannot be expected to follow the rules if we are not allowed to read them.
Who is expecting you to know ALL the rules? Of course TSA wants you to read the website in order to make the screening process easier for both parties. Are you against that? What is your logic behind that.
Phil said...
If that's the case, the post doesn't make sense. How-to's and hints are not rules.
True. How-to's and hints are not rules. I added those in because I didn't want you to think that I was saying all the rules are posted on the website. Such as local rules. (ie flight crew can only use security lane (insert number here).
It was only meant to beat in that I was talking about the information present for travelers on the website.
Phil said...
Please explain why you think that me knowing what rules TSA requires me to follow would not be helpful. What do you mean by "how the rule is applied"? It's this simple: You tell me what the rules are, then if I abide by them, you leave me alone, or if I do not, you take appropriate action.
I do not think knowing ALL the rules would be helpful. Even if the rules provided became very specific, I think they would just outline the SOP. Also, the rules would only help you with static parts of the SOP. How about the dynamic part? Your 311 back gets pulled for inspection. Would not be covered in the 311 rule.
Phil said...
Rules posted at the local pool are hardly equivalent to those that my government requires me to follow in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted. One is enforced by law, and the other is not.
Don't focus on the pool Phil. Look at what I am trying to say. ~Warning Need To Use Critical Thinking~ Where is your freedom of movement being restricted? Did you win a court case that I am not aware of? If you can get a court to agree with you Phil or if I see a well laid out case, I will back you up all the way and do my best to get that fixed. Until then, this is just a argument that will go no where. You will say “yes it is” and I say “no it isn't.”
Yes the checkpoint is enforced by law. TSA points to the laws you need to follow. The ATSA.
Phil said...
Here's a better example: The maximum speed at which we're allowed to operate a vehicle on some road is 60 miles per hour. If I exceed that speed while driving on the road, I am in violation of that law. If I do not, I am not. The details were written by legislators and are available for anyone to read. If there is any confusion over them, a judge makes a decision. If I have never been on the road or do not understand what "drive" or "miles per hour" means, I can read the law and find out.
You want static security Phil. That is a bad thing for the airport. I suggest you do some counter-terrorism research. The paper I proved is a good starting point.
Phil said...
What do you man by "posted rule"? Where is the authoritative source? I don't believe that there is one. A number of conflicting pieces of information have been communicated by TSA.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 44901–44907, 44913–44914, 44916–44918, 44935–44936, 44942, 46105.
Source: 67 FR 8353, Feb. 22, 2002, unless otherwise noted.
Authority for screening process is given by law. The authority of that law is given above. The screening process is backed up by the ATSA.
Phil said...
Right. He accuses me of wrongdoing. He, I, my lawyer, a judge, or anyone else can read the rule he has accused me of violating. We can determine if it is constitutional. We can ensure that we abide by it. A judge or jury will decide whether I did, in fact, violate it, and may impose punishment as a result.
This is a lot of areas all thrown into one. How would you apply that to the checkpoint? You go into bring a lawyer and a judge in, why can't you now? Others have? You can determine if its constitutional. Go to court Phil. Whats stopping you? You want a judge and jury for (insert security rule here)????
You want police officers at the checkpoint Phil. I don't see how TSA can fit into your rubric. You want static ineffective security. I don't see your logic and you have not explained it. You don't even try to attempt to attack the static vs dynamic argument.
Phil said...
TSA makes up rules, judges guilt, and imposes punishment -- with no opportunity for appeal -- on-the-fly. Your staff act as legislator, police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. No checks, no balances, no due process. It is entirely un-American, and it is a danger to our freedom.
How many rules have been made up on the spot when you have flown Phil? Is it fair to believe that TSA makes up rules on the spot.
When has TSA judged you guilty Phil? How many years did you do and what was your fine? Were you judged guilty of breaking the 311? What was your punishment Phil? Did you refuse to show your ID at the ticket counter Phil? What was your punishment?
TSA is a danger to your freedom? I don't know why your sounding the horn Phil. Security is never a black and white thing. Security standards changed every day. You need to remember one thing. This is a American solution to a American problem. The problem is ever evolving and we need to do the same. TSA is not the catalyst for a police state.
-H2H
Anonymous said... Bob, let's answer some real questions. February 18, 2009 4:51 PM
-------------------
Answer some real questions? OK. My favorite color is green. I prefer fall and spring to winter and summer. I am a Leo. My favorite cereal is Boooooo Berry. Not really, it’s Shredded Wheat. I do like Boooo Berry though.
Seriously though, to you and others who have commented that this isn’t much of a post, you’re right. It’s just a simple answer to a simple question that gets asked a lot. Can you define what a blog post is supposed to be? In my eyes, a blog post can be long and detailed, a link pointing you to an interesting page, or just a short blurb like this one.
We currently have several interesting blog posts in the works for your reading pleasure.
------------------
Phil said... "TSA Contact Center" Could you please comment on this continued misinformation? February 18, 2009 4:49 PM
------------------
Phil & RB and others interested, thanks to RBs post about the response from the contact center on 3.0 / 3.4, we will be posting soon on that very subject. Stay tuned…
------------------
Anonymous said... If they compile a list of rules for passengers to follow then I doubt that will be good enough for most readers on this blog. –James February 19, 2009 11:33 AM
-------------------
Well, I hate to speak for all readers of our blog, but I’m sure a few folks wouldn’t be happy. Listen, this is being discussed, but when and if we put something together, it’s not going to be the all inclusive book of rules that will guarantee that you never go through secondary screening again. I know that’s what many of you want. I don’t blame you. It’s also what those that to wish to do us harm would like to have. I’m not naive enough to believe that people haven’t already observed us enough to figure out many of our procedures for themselves, but they don’t know everything.
Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals? Sure the Cardinals have probably reviewed hours of footage from past games, but that doesn’t mean they know all of the Steelers plays and when and why they make them.
-------------------
Anonymous said... Do you guys realize that there are different officers on xray? Officer interpretation will differ from person to person. What one officer may clear another one may threat and thus you are waiting for your bag to be searched. –James February 19, 2009 11:38 AM
-------------------
Another good reason why we can’t guarantee that a passenger who knows “all the rules” won’t get screened… Your suitcase contents could shuffle and the contents could look suspicious to an x-ray operator. I’ve seen some pretty threatening images end up being a pile of nothing, but on the monitor, it looked like a textbook IED.
--------------------
Anonymous said... Shouldn't your officers shift briefs in private? February 19, 2009 12:52 PM
--------------------
Ideally, yes, but it just isn’t possible in some locations. We do our best to take our briefings out of earshot with the public, but we can’t always stay out the public’s view. There just isn’t the real-estate available at some check points. As new checkpoints are built, these kinds of things are kept in mind, but we have occupied many older checkpoints that have very small break rooms etc.
--------------------
*** On an unrelated note, I got with our IT team and they fixed the certificate issue on our “Contact Us” page. A simple new step was buried in the instructions and was missed.
"Please note that in order to deploy your SSL certificate, you will also need to install an L1B Chain Certificate to the 2048 Root….”
*** Also, the OMB # on our comment cards and Got Feedback form has been updated. It’s good now until 1/31/2012.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Blogger Bob wrote...
Well, I hate to speak for all readers of our blog, but I’m sure a few folks wouldn’t be happy. Listen, this is being discussed, but when and if we put something together, it’s not going to be the all inclusive book of rules that will guarantee that you never go through secondary screening again. I know that’s what many of you want. I don’t blame you.
____
That's not my goal, secondary screening is expected for either my self or my belongings if something raises a legitimate question.
What I and many others really want is to KNOW that we can bring some perfectly legal, perfectly logical, non-threatening, and safe to have on an airliner personal possession with us in our carry-on, without having some overanxious, ill-trained, low level government employee insist that we turn it over to them or not fly today.
(Think back to things like a military medal presented by a US President to the traveler for but one example.)
Go ahead and secondary screen me if you have good reason - no problem so long as you are efficient and rational and do not make me miss my flight.
Just don't make me "voluntarily surrender" my personal property to a government agent due to some "secret law, rule or procedure" that I am not allowed to know. That way lies the steep slippery slope.
Blogger Bob Continued...
*** On an unrelated note, I got with our IT team and they fixed the certificate issue on our “Contact Us” page. A simple new step was buried in the instructions and was missed.
"Please note that in order to deploy your SSL certificate, you will also need to install an L1B Chain Certificate to the 2048 Root….”
*** Also, the OMB # on our comment cards and Got Feedback form has been updated. It’s good now until 1/31/2012.
____
Thank you.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
Tomas said...(Think back to things like a military medal presented by a US President to the traveler for but one example.)February 19, 2009 9:23 PM
-----------------
Howdy Tomas. I'm getting ready to blow out the candle and go home for the night, but I couldn't resist clearing this one up as I've done before on this blog.
I assume you're talking about the time Joesph J Foss' Medal of Honor was confused with a throwing star by security screeners.
Unfortunately, this really happened, but it wasn't TSA. It was private screeners. The incident happened in January of 2002 before any TSA officers had rolled out. Check out the full story on Snopes ----> http://is.gd/kbc9
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Thanks for the clarification, Bob, my error in usung that particular example. :o(
I should have used one of the many, many others.
Tom
Tomas said... I should have used one of the many, many others. February 19, 2009 9:38 PM
-----------------
Ouch. :)
Bob said in part.........
Well, I hate to speak for all readers of our blog, but I’m sure a few folks wouldn’t be happy. Listen, this is being discussed, but when and if we put something together, it’s not going to be the all inclusive book of rules that will guarantee that you never go through secondary screening again. I know that’s what many of you want. I don’t blame you. It’s also what those that to wish to do us harm would like to have. I’m not naive enough to believe that people haven’t already observed us enough to figure out many of our procedures for themselves, but they don’t know everything.
...........................
Your missing the point. No one is trying to avoid secondary. What we want to avoid is having permitted property seized at the checkpoint by some of your highly trained TSO's who for some reason do not know the rules. Nothing more.
.................................
Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals? Sure the Cardinals have probably reviewed hours of footage from past games, but that doesn’t mean they know all of the Steelers plays and when and why they make them.
...................
No one is asking for the play books, just the rules to the game that both the Steelers and Cardinals have and must follow to play the game.
Bob writes:
Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals? Sure the Cardinals have probably reviewed hours of footage from past games, but that doesn’t mean they know all of the Steelers plays and when and why they make them.
With all respect, Bob ... your analogy is flawed.
First of all ... how do you know the Cardinals didn't already have the Steelers' playbook? Sure, they say they didn't, but can you ever really know? Especially when that playbook is so valuable? How can you be sure that a copy of the Steelers playbook didn't somehow find its way to an opponent?
Second, wouldn't it be in the Steelers' best interest to design an offense so that it doesn't matter whether their opponents know what's coming or not? Wouldn't that ensure victory with much greater probability than simply relying on being able to outguess the defense?
Ok, I'll stop before this gets too silly ...
This blog made me think back to when I most recently took a plane and was in an airport, which was about one month ago when I flew from Chicago (O'Hare) to Washington D.C.
I always thought that the reason why there were sometimes officers standing in a cluster was because either they had anticipated more passengers than showed up for their flights, like a rush hour situation, or just for the extra set of eyes watching and making sure that the airports are safe.
Either way, I appreciate having the extra security at airports, and I am glad that with the way our economy is and unemployment is, that TSA isn't trying to stay within budget by skimping on security officers and compromising citizen safety.
[Apologies to other readers. This is a long one, and it's all responses to HappyToHelp. If TSA used more flexible software for this blog, you could hide the entire branch of this thread that is HTH's and my discussion with one click. Instead, you'll need to scroll down.]
HappyToHelp wrote:
"You not caring about the website shows"
You brought it up. I just want to know the rules you require me to follow when you stop me at an airport.
"Are you referencing the 311?"
I did not intend to reference "the 311". I just want to know the rules you require me to follow when you stop me at an airport.
"Who is expecting you to know ALL the rules?"
Let's not get into what was meant by "expecting" here, but generally, the answer is that TSA expects me to know all the rules they require me to follow, and they will seize my belongings or prevent me from going about my business if I violate those rules.
"Of course TSA wants you to read the website in order to make the screening process easier for both parties. Are you against that?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "against that". It's unreasonable to expect people to study your Web site in order to know what they must do in order to avoid breaking the law (some people do not have access to the Web; other requirements placed on us by our government are not communicated exclusively via the Web), but if you think your tips will make the lives of everyone involved better, go ahead and recommend the site. Until your Web site is the authoritative source for the rules you require me to follow when you stop me at an airport, I'm not particularly concerned with it. As we've repeatedly uncovered here, that site is not only incomplete, but in some cases, inaccurate.
I think TSA should stop misinforming people with its signs, brochures, Web pages, and airport announcements.
"I do not think knowing ALL the rules would be helpful."
It think knowing all the rules TSA requires me to follow when you stop me at an airport would be helpful if I wanted to ensure that I am in compliance with all those rules, and I do want that.
"Even if the rules provided became very specific, I think they would just outline the SOP."
I don't know much about your procedures, so I can't understand how they are related to the rules you require me to follow, other than to guess that part of those procedures is "ensure that people follow the rules".
Please, forget about your internal procedures for now and just show me what rules you require me to follow when you stop me at the airport so you'll let me go about my business.
"Also, the rules would only help you with static parts of the SOP."
I don't know what "static parts of the SOP" means, and I don't care about it. That's your business. Please, forget about your internal procedures and just show me the rules you require me to follow. As long as you do it ethically and legally, I'm not particularly concerned how you get your job done.
"Your 311 back gets pulled for inspection. Would not be covered in the 311 rule."
Do you mean my "freedom baggie"? Presumably, if you inspect it, you will be verifying that none of its content is prohibited (i.e., that I am not in violation of the rules you require me to follow).
"Where is your freedom of movement being restricted?"
We're not discussing my experience in particular, but people's freedom of movement is restricted by TSA primarily at airports, though I understand that you're now setting up your "road blocks" at sporting events, political rallies, and other public places.
"Did you win a court case that I am not aware of?"
I don't know what you are aware of, but I have not won any court case that is relevant to this discussion.
"If you can get a court to agree with you Phil or if I see a well laid out case, I will back you up all the way and do my best to get that fixed."
I don't know what you meant by this. Please explain if it's important to our discussion.
"Yes the checkpoint is enforced by law."
That does not make sense. A checkpoint is not something that can be enforced. It is a place, not a policy.
"You want static security Phil. That is a bad thing for the airport. I suggest you do some counter-terrorism research. The paper I proved is a good starting point."
Counter-terrorism? Why bring that up? We're talking about airport security. Terrorism is just one tiny risk. We're far more likely to be injured in an automobile wreck than by terrorist activity.
I wasn't, until a moment ago, familiar with the term static security. I poked around the Web a bit, and found that Bruce Schneier sums it up like this: "Guards = dynamic security. Tripwires = static security. Dynamic security is better than static security."
I don't understand how that applies to this discussion. Your job at the airport is primarily to ensure that weapons, explosives, and incendiaries are not taken aboard airplanes. It makes sense that you would have some "guards" look for those things. It also makes sense that while working toward the more general goal of improving transportation security, you would have some guards watch for wrongdoing. You can't have guards watch for wrongdoing until you define wrongdoing.
Similarly, police don't lay out "tripwires" to stop people from doing bad things. They watch for wrongdoing and intervene when they believe they see it. The decision of whether wrong was done is left up to judges and juries, but wrongdoing is quite statically defined. We can go and read the rules that we are required by law to follow in all cases except those where TSA is involved. Then there are few written rules. This is bad.
In reference to "posted rule" and authoritative sources for the rules we're required by TSA to follow, you wrote:
"Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 44901–44907, 44913–44914, 44916–44918, 44935–44936, 44942, 46105."
Please provide links. I've gone through this with other people, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. If you can provide a URI for a place that I can scan the documents you've cited, I'll do a happily search them for "shoes," "breast milk," "3.4 fluid ounces," and "1-quart, resealable, plastic bag".
"Authority for screening process is given by law. The authority of that law is given above. The screening process is backed up by the ATSA."
Again, for now, please drop the focus on your job, and just show me the rules you require me to follow. I'll take for granted that you have the authority to enforce those rules.
I wrote:
"[If a police officer] accuses me of wrongdoing. He, I, my lawyer, a judge, or anyone else can read the rule he has accused me of violating. We can determine if it is constitutional. We can ensure that we abide by it. A judge or jury will decide whether I did, in fact, violate it, and may impose punishment as a result."
You responded:
"This is a lot of areas all thrown into one. How would you apply that to the checkpoint?"
If a someone from TSA accuses me of wrongdoing, he, I, my lawyer, a judge, or anyone else should be able to read the rule he accused me of violating. We should be able to determine if that rule is constitutional. We should be able to ensure that we are in compliance with the rule. And if you think what I did warrants punishment, a judge or jury should decide whether I violated the rule and deserve punishment. But none of this is the case.
"You go into bring a lawyer and a judge in, why can't you now?"
I've no reason to do so now. I'm quite certain, though, that if you were to publish the rules you require us to follow, lawyers and judges would read them.
"You can determine if [our rules are] constitutional."
No, I cannot. You insist on keeping them secret.
"You want police officers at the checkpoint Phil."
Not specifically. If they felt that they needed to be there, I suppose they would be. I'm not a law enforcement expert. I leave that up to police.
"You want static ineffective security."
I just want you to show me the rules you require me to follow so that I can abide by your rules and go about my business without any hassle from you beyond that which is required for you to verify that I am in compliance with your rules.
I wrote:
"TSA makes up rules, judges guilt, and imposes punishment -- with no opportunity for appeal -- on-the-fly. Your staff act as legislator, police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. No checks, no balances, no due process. It is entirely un-American, and it is a danger to our freedom."
You responded:
"How many rules have been made up on the spot when you have flown Phil?"
I have no way of knowing how many rules were made up on-the-spot when I have flown, because you keep your rules secret. It's impossible for someone to know whether something that one of your baggage inspectors seizes was prohibited by existing rule or by a rule that the inspector made up on-the-fly.
"Is it fair to believe that TSA makes up rules on the spot."
Until you show us the rules, yes, it is fair to believe that TSA makes up rules on the spot.
"When has TSA judged you guilty Phil?"
That is irrelevant to this discussion. My experiences are not at issue here.
"TSA is a danger to your freedom?"
Yes. TSA endangers everyone's freedom. It subjects us to secret rules and restricts our freedom of movement based on blacklists.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
In reference to requests that TSA simply show us the rules it requires us to follow, Bob at TSA wrote:
"Listen, this is being discussed, but when and if we put something together, it’s not going to be the all inclusive book of rules that will guarantee that you never go through secondary screening again."
Nobody said anything about secondary screenings. We just want to know what rules you require us to follow so we can be sure to do so. Presumably, once you determine that we are in compliance with the rules, you'll leave us to go about our business.
"I know [the all inclusive book of rules that will guarantee that you never go through secondary screening again is] what many of you want. I don’t blame you. It’s also what those that to wish to do us harm would like to have."
Come on, Bob. Your rules presumably specify that people cannot do things that you believe would cause danger. Are you really concerned that "people who wish to do us harm" might discover your definition of "not a danger to air travel" and not pose a danger? Do you want people to do dangerous things so that you can catch them, or do you want them to refrain from causing danger?
"I’m not naive enough to believe that people haven’t already observed us enough to figure out many of our procedures for themselves, but they don’t know everything."
If they haven't, I'm sure it wouldn't take much to get that information out of any one of the thousands of lowest-level TSA employees -- those who I believe turn over at a rate of somewhere around 25% per year -- with whom you share those procedures.
We keep asking to see the rules you require us to follow, and you keep changing the subject to your procedures. For the hundredth time, please set consideration of your procedures aside and simply tell us what you want us to do, and what you want us to not do. How you do your job is mostly your business, not ours (though we'd like to ensure that you do it in a safe, legal, and ethical manner.)
"Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals?"
Bob, by now you know well that we're not asking for your playbook. We're asking for the rules. The Cardinals would not play if the Steelers set the rules and refused to share them. Furthermore, the Steelers are not comprised of about 99.999999% people who are on the Cardinals' side. We, however, are mostly on your side, and we do not have the luxury of not playing with you. Please stop obsessing about your internal procedures and show us the rules you require us to follow.
It's ridiculous to punish us for breaking rules that we are not allowed to see.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
QFT! (Quoted For Truth)
Blogger Bob wrote...
Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals? Sure the Cardinals have probably reviewed hours of footage from past games, but that doesn’t mean they know all of the Steelers plays and when and why they make them.
RB wrote...
No one is asking for the play books, just the rules to the game that both the Steelers and Cardinals have and must follow to play the game.
Thank you RB for stating it so clearly.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
This is when critical intelligence is shared or information relating to an FBI BOLO or Amber Alert is distributed.
Sometimes these briefings take place in rooms outside of the public view and other times there just isn’t any space at a particular airport and briefings have to be conducted in a public area.
Are you joking? There's not enough space to conduct the meeting so you share "CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE" (read: Classified Information), in PUBLIC VIEW!!!! This warrants a federal probe into TSA's OPSEC procedures (or rather, lack thereof). You prove once again you can't be trusted with the security of this nation.
At PNS airport this seems to be the norm since they look to be the most staffed station in the country. I fly between PNS and IAH pretty often and they are more TSA staff in PNS than in IAH terminal C. In PNS, they even have two elderly members giving out zip-loc bags.
By the way, I was told at PNS last SUn (15FEB) that all shoes in carry-on luggage should be put through the x-ray machine. At IAH, they are not even aware of this.
Oh for cryin' out loud people! Here's a rule for you...You are not allowed to fly. Quit taking up space w/ the redundant "I want rules" line and lets appreciate TSA for trying to give us what info they can. No other agency has been so open and I for one appreciate them.
people just go to tsa.gov, for the list of things you can and cannot bring into the checkpoint, thats the best youre going to get, and it does give you enough information, I have never had any problems flying, and i just go to the website to find the information, not difficult, now if you dont like the answers thats a different story.
Another question for you to ignore, Bob...
Can you explain the disconnect between this quote
"Some passengers Thursday said they wished the TSA had posted signs near the body scanner with a reproduction of the image. "I might not have wanted to go through if I had seen that," said Susanne Nicklas of Grove, Okla. "I'm 72, and I don't have the figure I used to."
From Thomas Frank's article in USA Today on 2/19/09 regarding the roll-out of the MMW machines (aka the virtual strip searches) referenced here
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-02-19-airport-scanners_N.htm#uslPageReturn
with your your previous post here
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/04/safety-privacy-concerns-regarding.html
which showed the signs complete w/pictures the traveler quoted above was looking for?
Seems to me, despite assurances by Spokesperson White in the article, the TSA IS trying to hide just how graphic these images really are from the traveling public (aka the guinea pigs). W/o putting the signs out in plain view prior to the passengers entering the machines, there is no way to truly gage how passengers feels about these machines.
Guess that was the point, though, huh?
"It’s also what those that to wish to do us harm would like to have."
How many such people has TSA ever caught? Zero.
Bob, you know nothing about smart security. Security through obscurity is not good or smart or secure, as anyone with any knowledge of security will tell you. Smart security works even when every detail of it is known and public. And TSA's obligation to be open and honest with the taxpayers it ostensibly serves exceeds its nonexistent need to hide its precious, precious procedures from "people who would do us harm" even though you have never, ever, ever caught such a person.
Please go into another line of work at let Secretary Napolitano replace you with someone who does.
Your staff act as legislator, police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner.
___________________________________
Oh this is good. This means that I will have not problem finding a job after the TSA with all of this experience under my belt!
Here's a better example: The maximum speed at which we're allowed to operate a vehicle on some road is 60 miles per hour. If I exceed that speed while driving on the road, I am in violation of that law. If I do not, I am not. The details were written by legislators and are available for anyone to read. If there is any confusion over them, a judge makes a decision. If I have never been on the road or do not understand what "drive" or "miles per hour" means, I can read the law and find out.
___________________________________
This is hardly equivalent to those rules of the TSA. First of all you are talking about laws. What do laws and the TSA have to do with one another. You said it a million times, you want a list of RULES. So how can you compare the law of a police officer to the rules of TSA? All everyone does is complain about how the TSO's are not police officers, so why is it you compare us to them?!
LWA, whom should I trust? You? Paul? One page on your Web site? Another page? A sign in an airport with TSA's logo on it? A TSA bag inspector at the airport?
___________________________________
Who cares! Just follow the directions of the TSO when you get to the airport.
"So how can you compare the law of a police officer to the rules of TSA? All everyone does is complain about how the TSO's are not police officers, so why is it you compare us to them?!"
What you completely, utterly fail to realize is that there's no such thing as "the law of a police officer." Police officers enforce rules that are specific and public; if the rules changed -- if the speed limit were changed from 55 to 60, for instance -- police officers could not ticket a person driving 57 for speeding, and if an officer did, the driver could go to court and get the case dismissed. And the speed limit is posted on public signs, not kept secret to bedevil "drivers who wish to do us harm."
TSA, on the other hand, operates under secret rules it refuses to make public, and empowers TSOs to violate its stated rules on a whim, and gives citizens no recourse against its bad decisions. That is one of the many, many reasons why TSA is such a justifiably hated agency that it is less popular than the IRS.
Phil....I know the economy is tough right now, but please do us all a favor and get a job...or a hobby. You have WAY too much time on your hands!!
Some anonomous TSA supporter said "Who cares! Just follow the directions of the TSO when you get to the airport."
###################
I followed the directions of a TSO and it ended with my wife crying. After reading the useless TSA.GOV "website", we tried taking breast milk with a gel pack to keep it cold. A TSO supervisor in STL made up a "rule" and said "gel packs are only allowed for medication, not infants" and confiscated our gel pack. After some travel delays, the 13 oz of breast milk spoiled, and we poured it down the drain.
The guidelines on how to travel with formula, and the rest of the website are simple public relations fluff as long as the TSOs and TSO supervisors can just make up excuses and confiscate "permitted" items.
I don't trust the TSA to know its own "rules", even when it tries to explain them on this blog and website. Maybe you should trash the whole thing and make the (now hidden?) one true rule more prominent:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects against searches and seizures is not violated when a TSO so desires.
Ah, here is that one rule the TSO uses to justify any confiscation:
"To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint."
It seems buried in the hard-to-find prohibited items printable PDF. With a rule like that, you don't need any other rules.
Quote from Jim Huggins: "With all respect, Bob ... your analogy is flawed.
First of all ... how do you know the Cardinals didn't already have the Steelers' playbook? Sure, they say they didn't, but can you ever really know? Especially when that playbook is so valuable? How can you be sure that a copy of the Steelers playbook didn't somehow find its way to an opponent?"
Actually, Whisenhunt and Grimm have both had access to the Steeler playbook having COACHED the Steelers as little as 2 years ago. With as long as they've been coaching them, I'm sure they knew the playbook by heart. Not that much would have changed in 2 years.
Even with that knowledge, Whisenhunt couldn't lead the Cardinals to victory due to the Steelers overall better execution.
If you're going to pick a football analogy Bob, you picked a very bad one. Your illustration showed you had a former insider that had intimate knowledge of the opponent and still wasn't able to crack them, thus showing that solid procedures and excecution can overcome knowledge.
Robert - an avid Steelers fan :)
This isn't a matter of being able to swim at the neighborhood pool, you know. If I don't follow your rules, I can't travel within my own country by the only means that is often feasible. If I don't follow your rules, you will either seize my property or restrict my freedom of movement. Let's not take this lightly.
Phil I am not taking this lightly. I am really trying to help out here but it is difficult with how "black and white" views are being expressed. The liquids do have to come out of the back, but if they don't we will just take up more of your time by searching your bag. So in a sense having your liquids out seperate speeds up the security process. You dont "have" to do it but it will save you alot of time. Medical exemptions and baby stuff is a different circumstance but should still be out seperate.
Phil said...For the hundredth time, please set consideration of your procedures aside and simply tell us what you want us to do, and what you want us to not do.
Phil, Do you like how I put the "Phil said" in your comment? Ha-ha. Anyways Phil I want to just level with you. The rules are pretty much what I gave you above. You called them tips or something that I can't remember. They really are the rules but given the situation rules change. As HTH has said we are not a static security. We are a dynamic security. We have a human element which can make security be unpredicatable. Phil what I want you to do at checkpoints is what I posted near the top of the page. What I don't want you to do Phil is to bring any prohibited items with you. I do not want you to try to circumvent security. I do not want you to intimidate, threaten or hassle my officers in a demeaning way. Do these things Phil and I really do not see security being tough for you or for anyone. Please try to give me specifics on things so I can try to rephrase anything or say something in a different way. There is no list of rules really. There are procedures that we apply and every situation can be different. There is no "black and white" security. Just Human officers providing security at our nation's airports.
Quote from LTSO with Answers: "Phil, Do you like how I put the "Phil said" in your comment? Ha-ha. Anyways Phil I want to just level with you. The rules are pretty much what I gave you above. You called them tips or something that I can't remember. They really are the rules but given the situation rules change. As HTH has said we are not a static security. We are a dynamic security. We have a human element which can make security be unpredicatable. Phil what I want you to do at checkpoints is what I posted near the top of the page. What I don't want you to do Phil is to bring any prohibited items with you. I do not want you to try to circumvent security. I do not want you to intimidate, threaten or hassle my officers in a demeaning way. Do these things Phil and I really do not see security being tough for you or for anyone. Please try to give me specifics on things so I can try to rephrase anything or say something in a different way. There is no list of rules really. There are procedures that we apply and every situation can be different. There is no "black and white" security. Just Human officers providing security at our nation's airports."
Few issues here.
Dynamic security tends to imply that TSA can't get any firm handle on its workforce. When Kippie started the "consinstent inconsistency" ploy, many (me included) took it to mean that getting TSO's to do their job according to the SOP would be too hard. It was easier to just say that inconsitency would be the rule rather than bring any sort of consistency to TSA. In the process, it also removes accountability from the process.
Second, with the "dynamic" aspect, I don't see anything dynamic about it. The rules seems to be fairly static. Shoes had to come off now for over 2 years (optional before). Liquids are restricted. Etc. If there is anything dynamic about it, it's that it's constantly moving in the wrong direction. Dynamic also implies that there are no hard set rules. Dynamic means that if a mistake is made in policy - that something is banned that shouldn't be - that it's corrected and permitted. It also means that when a threat has passed or is reduced, that security is relaxed. Take the Unabomber incident in the 90's. When he was at large, security was heightened. When he was caught, ti was relaxed. Of coruse, the Unabomber wasn't the only bomber out there and bombs were still screened for, but we didn't remain in at the constant code orange like we do now. We don't see any relaxtion - only more restrictions.
Another issue is that we don't want to bring prohibited items thru. That's why we're asking - give us a REAL list. As has been stated on the blog, TSO's pretty much have free reign to declare a nonprohibited item a prohibited item, with little recourse if a person wants to make a flight. Mr. Gel Pack's wife brought ice packs for breast milk - completely permitted items with the breast milk - yet a TSO made a call that they were prohibited. So the milk spoiled. And of course, there's the homemade battery incident, which TSA admitted wasn't a threat and wasn't prohibited, but was still confiscated.
We could even bring a list of rules with us. Problem is, with this free reign, TSO's have been known to say "that's an old list" or "the list isn't correct." Yes, we can supposedly escalate to a supervisor, but 9 times out of 10, the supervisor backs the TSO.
We want to get thru the TSA gauntlet with as little harassment as possible. We're asking for an easy to find and read, accurate, and binding list so when we encounter a rogue TSO that says something like gel packs for breast milk are prohibited, we can show them they are - and have it mean something. And also have it mean we don't get a "do you want to fly today?" for challenging them.
It's not a hard concept and should be easily given to the public. However, TSA continues to stone wall on this. Rules that we're going to affect us can't be SSI - you essentially tell us the rules when you deny us the item.'
I work with classified information every day. Lots of it can be redacted and watered down to the point that it can be shared with the general public. We don't need to know that "X is banned because we're watching a terrorist cell in country Y actively testing plots." What can be said is "X is banned or restricted to Z quantity." While we may or may not grumble about the apparent stupidity of a rule, we'll at least know it's a REAL rule and not one a TSO made up on the spot.
Bottom line: show us that dynamic security is really adjusting to threats and not just an excuse to cover up institutional and screener incompetence. Because, quite frankly, I see "dynamic" security in the TSA sense as the latter.
Robert
>>This is when critical intelligence is shared or information relating to an FBI BOLO or Amber Alert is distributed.
Why? Do you once again think that you are part of law enforcement?
You are not cops. You have no law enforcement authority (that goodness). Get over it.
Dynamic also implies that there are no hard set rules.
I think you've got it Robert! The SOP we follow is the bare minimum. Everything else is human based security with ever changing situations. There is not a "this happens so do this" structure. There is the officer mentality of stopping anything that could be concealed by A, B, and C...
We could even bring a list of rules with us.
There will never be an all inclusive list to never be hassled by us as a checkpoint.
We're asking for an easy to find and read, accurate, and binding list so when we encounter a rogue TSO that says something like gel packs for breast milk are prohibited, we can show them they are - and have it mean something. And also have it mean we don't get a "do you want to fly today?" for challenging them.
I have had a passenger do this to one of my officers before. He just had a webpage printed out to show anyone that he was right. That man that day was correct and my officer was incorrect. It helped to address the issue.
I am glad that TSA is looking at the FBI’s BOLO reports. As a frequent traveler I don’t want to board a plane with one of America’s most wanted, even if they are not wanted for bombing airplanes. The more people who look for the bad guys the quicker they are caught. TV shows like Americas Most Wanted teach us that. Second, as a parent I am relieved to know that TSA is involved with Amber Alerts. God forbid, if one of my children ever went missing I would want every set of eyes available looking for my loved ones. Thank you TSA for being a part of the solution instead of one more group complaining about the problem.
LWA better give me some answers!!!
You said
Take Laptops, DVD players and other larger sized electronic items out of your carry-on to help eliminate clutter and speed up the screening process.
At an airport I went through I saw a sign that said only Full-size DVD players have to come out. What is enforced many places is all portable DVD players have to come out of the bag. So this is what we mean by "secret unwritten rules". Why is it so different than what the signage is telling us to do?
-James
"What I don't want you to do Phil is to bring any prohibited items with you."
Fine. Where can citizens find a list of prohibited items, so we can know what not to bring with us?
"I do not want you to try to circumvent security. I do not want you to intimidate, threaten or hassle my officers in a demeaning way."
Please provide definitions for "intimidate," "threaten," and "hassle." Otherwise you're saying that any citizen who questions or disagrees with a TSO can be subject to maltreatment at that TSO's whim.
"Do these things Phil and I really do not see security being tough for you or for anyone."
As has been pointed out to you and other TSA apparatchiks and apologists, it is impossible for any citizen to comply with security demands that are both secret and subject to the whim of those who enforce them. There are literally hundreds of examples that have been discussed here -- always by citizens, never by TSA apparatchiks and apologists -- in which TSOs acted foolishly, or wrongly, or in violation of what we've been told we are allowed to know about TSA's policies, causing grave harm to citizens and yet garnering the praise of TSA's apparatchiks and apologists.
Phil....I know the economy is tough right now, but please do us all a favor and get a job...or a hobby. You have WAY too much time on your hands!!
Because standing up for your rights in a constitutional republic is such a horrific thing.
Robert Johnson said: As has been stated on the blog, TSO's pretty much have free reign to declare a nonprohibited item a prohibited item, with little recourse if a person wants to make a flight.
I agree with alot of what you (passengers) post on here about certain issues and I wish things were a little more clear (i.e. the rules) But I want to talk about this particular rule that most of you take interest in; that we basically have permission to claim something is prohibited and "confiscate" said item.
Just because we have that "permission" doesn't mean that we just take things all the time or b/c we want to. You have this wild image of us in your head that we are evil villians that rub our hands together with that crazy look in our eyes and wait eagerly for our next victim. You really think that we just looooove to come to work and take people's things just to make them angry and get yelled at all day for it? I don't think so.
Most of the people I work with are probably some of the nicest people you will ever meet. We come in everyday to do our job, just like most of you. We are NOT out to get you. I know that there ARE airports where the TSO's you encounter are just plain mean and treat people in that very manner, but don't stoop to their level and treat all TSO's that way. Do we not all agree that we want to be treated "innocent until proven guilty"? Door swings both ways!!
Here to help (both sides)
SDF TSO
Utter, utter rubbish. :) "Most likely a shift change"? Sorry, not even close, unless you're claiming that TSA is *always* changing shifts every time I happen to be flying. Gee, what are the chances.
Traveling all over the world, having seen real security systems at work (UK, Germany, Japan, Australia) I can safely say that the TSA both looks like and *is* simply overstaffed and has people standing about doing squat, with the ones that are working tending to not doing their job particularly well anyway. (Yeah, it looks real professional to have the staff on the xray machine yabbering with friends while they're supposed to be working! And it does wonders for their work performance...)
Actually, that's unfair: in my experience they're standing about talking about their social lives and ignoring what they are (presumably) being paid to do. Talking to them from time to time I'm constantly struck by just how poorly trained and basically incapable they are.
From an HR perspective, you don't do shift briefs in the work area. You do them in a private, controlled area away from the public, where you can openly discuss the things you might need to discuss with the upcoming shift.
Honestly, you guys are either just making stuff up or you're in serious need of genuine professional help in designing and running the organization. It's a farce.
So you don't think security at an airport, you know, where people travel, should know if someone has been abducted and maybe keep an eye out for them?
And the FBI seems to like them looking for those individulas which is good enough for me.
KellyMae81 writes:
Do we not all agree that we want to be treated "innocent until proven guilty"? Door swings both ways!!
Except that TSA doesn't treat passengers as "innocent until proven guilty" --- in fact, it's exactly the opposite.
TSA treats every item brought through the checkpoint as a possible threat, until such time as screeners determine that it does not pose a threat. If the passenger cannot prove that the item is not a threat, the item cannot be brought through.
TSA treats every passenger approaching the checkpoint as a possible terrorist, until such time as screeners determine that the passenger is not. After all, TSA keeps crying that "identity matters"; why else would passengers be asked to positively prove that they aren't on the no-fly list by presenting ID?
Both of those situations sound an awful lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me.
Now I'm not claiming that this attitude is inappropriate; security by definition tries to look for threatening situations even where none exist. But I think, with respect, that you need to back off the moral high ground on this one. If TSA treats its passengers as potential terrorists who must be proven innocent, it's hardly unreasonable to think that passengers are going to react in kind.
Anon said "Shouldn't your officers shift briefs in private?"
While that is a sound practice, not all airports have a designated brief area or the private space to accomodate all personnel for a brief. I worked in LAX for a 30 day rotation once and there was no designated place for the brief, so it was given at the checkpoint you were assigned to off to the side away from the public. There may be other reasons for the brief at the checkpoint they are describing here, but that is one viable explanation.
"Just because we have that "permission" doesn't mean that we just take things all the time or b/c we want to."
So? It doesn't matter if the people you work with are "nice people." TSA's rules as written give them unlimited scope to abuse citizens traveling by air with no recourse whatsoever. Police cannot make up laws on the spot just because they want to; IRS agents cannot make up taxes on the spot just because they want to; DMV clerks cannot make up requirements for getting a driver's license just because they want to; health inspectors cannot make up cleanliness requirements on the spot just because they want to. This is because, even if they are "nice people," giving government clerks and functionaries the authority to make up rules on the spot is an invitation to abuses of power, and citizens deserve better than to be subject to abuses of power by government clerks and functionaries -- including the clerks at the TSA. And yet, TSA claims that its clerks need to be able to make up rules on the spot.
Gunner said ">>This is when critical intelligence is shared or information relating to an FBI BOLO or Amber Alert is distributed.
Why? Do you once again think that you are part of law enforcement?
You are not cops. You have no law enforcement authority (that goodness). Get over it."
Wow, you really have personal issues that need to be worked out. When TSA gets a BOLO (or a "Be On the Look Out") they are not tasked with detaining someone. We are not an organization that has power of detention or arrest. The reason we would be given the BOLO is to help look for someone that is a person of interest to law enforcement. We would not detain or even approach someone on a BOLO, we would contact the LEO and send them after it. We are also given AMBER alerts whenthey occur in our geographic locality to assist in watching for a child that is possibily being transported against the law. Once again, we do not detain, merely contact the LEO to let them know what we have seen and what is going on. We have never stated that we are a "law enforcement" organization, we merely assist the area LEO with Bolos to make the LEO's job a bit easier. You seem to have a lot of anger on this issue, get over yourself. We assist in trying to stop children from being taken against the wishes of the family, and IF we notice someone that fits the description of a criminal distributed to ALL forms of mass transit in the area we let LEO know. Your attack on the organization here shows that either you didn't think this through, misunderstood the intentions behind the BOLO system or you are so angry and hateful you would rather let an innocent shild be takena agains their will or some murdering thug get away because we are "not a law enforcement organization".
LTSO with answers said "I have had a passenger do this [bring a printout] to one of my officers before. He just had a webpage printed out to show anyone that he was right. That man that day was correct and my officer was incorrect. It helped to address the issue."
--
TSA is idiots, and here's why: Trusting a piece of paper that the passengers present to you as the rules is as misguided as trusting them to print out a boarding pass for your ID checking--A potential terrorist could print out altered documents.
################
kelliemae81 wrote "Just because we have that "permission" doesn't mean that we just take things all the time or b/c we want to. You have this wild image of us in your head that we are evil villians that rub our hands together with that crazy look in our eyes and wait eagerly for our next victim. You really think that we just looooove to come to work and take people's things just to make them angry and get yelled at all day for it? I don't think so.
Most of the people I work with are probably some of the nicest people you will ever meet. We come in everyday to do our job, just like most of you. We are NOT out to get you. I know that there ARE airports where the TSO's you encounter are just plain mean and treat people in that very manner, but don't stoop to their level and treat all TSO's that way. Do we not all agree that we want to be treated "innocent until proven guilty"? Door swings both ways!!"
--
Kelliemae, TSA doesn't have to take things all the time to become a pain. If you take just a few non-terrorist items that are on the permitted list, like water for a medical condition, or a gel pack intended to keep breast milk from spoiling, TSA is no longer innocent. When TSA revels in the fact that it confiscated something non-dangerous (like a battery pack), it forfeits innocence. You know that TSA, as an organization, is not innocent: "I know that there ARE airports where the TSO's you encounter are just plain mean...".
Your organization is actually guilty of mistreating some portion of the 2,000,000 people it handles each day. TSA has already proven itself guilty, repeatedly, and rather than "innocent until proven guilty", y'all are at the how are you going to make things better stage, and you ask us to ignore it and expect it as inevitable.
Individually, you might be the nicest and best people in the world. But never forget that lots of people with badges thought of themselves in exactly the same way as they defended the homeland.
Are briefs a required part of the new uniform? I try to shift mine in private, why not the TSA?
kellymae81 wrote:
"I want to talk about this particular rule that most of you take interest in; that we basically have permission to claim something is prohibited and "confiscate" said item.
"Just because we have that "permission" doesn't mean that we just take things all the time or b/c we want to. You have this wild image of us in your head that we are evil villians that rub our hands together with that crazy look in our eyes and wait eagerly for our next victim. You really think that we just looooove to come to work and take people's things just to make them angry and get yelled at all day for it? I don't think so."
Kelly, I suspect that most people posting here do not think that you and your colleagues are out to abuse the system. The problem is that if the system allows for abuse, odds are that abuse will eventually occur. You and the people you know are only a small fraction of those who are able to abuse the system.
You might say, "Look people, you're always complaining about the fact that our rules say we can torture confessions out of you. It's not like we're looking for opportunities to harm you. Chill out." Seizing our belongings without just cause is surely not as serious as torturing us, but neither is something we should explicitly allow you to do. We're striving to achieve a system the disallows abuse. Your system does not require abuse, but it allows abuse, and quite possibly encourages it.
We're luck that more TSA staff don't abuse this authority. Please don't make us rely on luck.
If your rules say that your people can ban any item at-will, and enforce that ban by seizing the item or preventing someone from going where he or she wants to go, then we no longer have a protection from unreasonable search and seizure -- regardless of whether any unreasonable search or seizure has yet occurred.
By the logic you've described, we should be unconcerned with any TSA policy that allows for unreasonable or even unlawful behavior on your part, as long as we are not aware of you having done anything of the sort. I don't think you meant this, but you have, in effect, said it, and I strongly disagree.
See the difference?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Someone anonymously wrote:
"So you don't think security at an airport, you know, where people travel, should know if someone has been abducted and maybe keep an eye out for them?"
I think TSA airport checkpoint staff have their hands full searching us and our belongings for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. We didn't hire them to assist the FBI with locating fugitives. They aren't trained to perform law enforcement activities in a constitutional manner. This is made clear by the fact that so many of them feel they should take the opportunity presented to them by our special authorization of the searches they perform at airports to look for a number of instances of wrongdoing.
We would never have authorized TSA staff to go to an airport (or anywhere), set up a "roadblock," then search and interrogate everyone who passes -- even though it would have led to a few apprehensions of criminals. It would be un-American and dangerous to our freedom to allow TSA to do that.
Many courts have ruled that our government cannot set up "roadblocks" or "checkpoints" and stop everyone who passes, merely to catch the tiny minority who may have done something wrong. The rights of the many override the desire to catch the few.
Those of you who think it's a good idea for government to operate such dragnet operations might be more comfortable living in a totalitarian state. I, however, value my freedom. Please don't argue that we should give up the freedoms that America's founders fought for.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Am I the only one who caught the joke about TSA staff shifting their briefs in public? Sheesh, people, lighten up. ;-)
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Please provide definitions for "intimidate," "threaten," and "hassle." Otherwise you're saying that any citizen who questions or disagrees with a TSO can be subject to maltreatment at that TSO's whim.
Not disagreement or questioning per say. Intimidating by throwing things and yelling at officers is what I am talking about in this instance. Yes, people go overboard and do not act like adults in the checkpoints.
"Do these things Phil and I really do not see security being tough for you or for anyone."
As has been pointed out to you and other TSA apparatchiks and apologists, it is impossible for any citizen to comply with security demands that are both secret and subject to the whim of those who enforce them.
What makes listening to direction at the checkpoint at that time impossible? Situations change so the experience may not be the same everytime. It is frustrating I know (I have traveled too) but if you just follow directions that are given then you should be able to make it through security with little to no hassle.
Phil said...
You brought it up. I just want to know the rules you require me to follow when you stop me at an airport.
I'm really glad you want to know the rules Phil. Its people like you who come well prepared and quickly transverse through the checkpoint. If you get stopped Phil, thats a different story. Why is it a different story? Depends on a lot of factors. What the additional screening is for(ie person, bag), are you using a exception to a procedure(you decline the WTMD due to health concerns), have you been selected for enhanced screening, a particular situation and many many more.
One poster also pointed out that some rules are static. He used the “all shoes must come off” as a example. Yes I would agree for the most part that the rule is pretty static. As of late, there have been dynamic elements added to it. Not through the rule its self but through other initiatives.
If your a part of a online passenger community, I have no doubt you have seen post like “at (insert airport here) they made the whole line (insert dynamics here). Is this a new rule? I have never had to (insert dynamics here).”
Phil said...
Let's not get into what was meant by "expecting"
Agreed.
Phil said...
TSA expects me to know all the rules they require me to follow, and they will seize my belongings or prevent me from going about my business if I violate those rules.
Lets get specific here. A Transportation Security Officer expects you to know the basic rules. Seems like a disconnect between the Officer and the flying public. Not everyone has Internet or is able to read.
The main source of distributing checkpoint point rules are usually the Officers themselves. Just seems like a customer service issue to me.
“they will seize my belongings or prevent me from going about my business if I violate those rules.” Thats a general statement. Are we talking about improper seizer(Mr. Gelpack) or proper seizer(ie airport Law Enforcement seizes the gun in your bag)? Are you talking about additional screening when your referencing “prevent me from going about my business”? If your being detained or arrested at the checkpoint, TSA does not have the power to detain or arrest. If this is the case Phil, you need to contact airport Law Enforcement about your unlawful detention.
Phil said...
”...must do in order to avoid breaking the law...”
I thought we were talking about rules Phil. Of course, you must follow State and Federal laws. Are you referencing the civil penalty system? Theres a pdf floating around here with what will get you fined Phil.
Phil said...
I think TSA should stop misinforming people with its signs, brochures, Web pages, and airport announcements.
I'm guessing signs, brochures, webpages, and airport announcements your referencing the 311. That has been covered by Bob. The 3oz is on purpose. Please reference Bobs post from “The Path forward on Liquids”.
Phil said...
I don't know much about your procedures, so I can't understand how they are related to the rules you require me to follow, other than to guess that part of those procedures is "ensure that people follow the rules".
I can see you are trying to view what I am saying through the eyes of TSA. Your still looking at it as a Law Enforcement point of view. Security is a different beast Phil. That tells me I need to adjust fire(change how I am explaining things). Lets talk about controlled access. Like most Americans I lock my door. I don't answer my door to strangers and I don't let just anyone into my house. There are two entrances into my house. Guest only use one way to enter my residence(the front door). The base rule is given. Guest can only go through my front door. The rule doesn't drive what happens at my house. The situation does. If my front door is freshly painted then guest will enter through the back. How will a rule point to bad things? I have workers working on my house. The front and back doors are blocked off. They can go through any window but the third. Why? You have some valuables in there. Can the workers make a reasonable guess as to why that window is off limits. Yes.
Now don't get hung up on private vs. government. That is not the scope of this discussion. I'm trying not to reference the checkpoint. That way my post won't get deleted for containing SSI. Hope you can understand Phil.
Phil said...
I don't know what "static parts of the SOP" means, and I don't care about it. That's your business. Please, forget about your internal procedures and just show me the rules you require me to follow. As long as you do it ethically and legally, I'm not particularly concerned how you get your job done.
LOL. You already have that Phil. Isn't this the issue. Your saying its not enough. The procedures have been cut out. The dynamic part has been cut out. Whats left. The TSA website. Is it easy to read? No. Is all the information in one place? No. TSA can work on that Phil.
Phil said...
Do you mean my "freedom baggie"?
Yes. Good catch. Thanks Phil. I was in a hurry. Does it show :)
Phil said...
We're not discussing my experience in particular, but people's freedom of movement is restricted by TSA primarily at airports, though I understand that you're now setting up your "road blocks" at sporting events, political rallies, and other public places.
Behavioral Detection Officer does not mean “road block” at sporting events. If a Behavioral Detection Officer detained you or arrested you at the super bowl Phil, then you needed to have contacted a local Law Enforcement Officer about your unlawful detainment or arrest. As for the rest Phil. Your mixing TSA authority and other agencies authority. I'm sorry you feel that way. If your worried about increased TSA authority you need to pay close attention to changes to the ATSA and court decisions made on the ATSA. I will try to highlight those in the future here and TK does a excellent job as well. Other passenger community blogs, news articles, and webpages do a excellent job as well.
Phil said...
I don't know what you are aware of, but I have not won any court case that is relevant to this discussion.
I was just wondering if you won a court case against the TSA were they restricted your freedom of movement. Of course, I know the answer. I will try to leave out such comments in the future Phil. Since it does not add anything to our discussion. I was planning on leading into something with that but ran out of time. Why I left that in? I don't know.
Phil said...
That does not make sense. A checkpoint is not something that can be enforced. It is a place, not a policy.
Sure can. A checkpoint is defined by law. A checkpoint can't be called a checkpoint without meeting the benchmarks laid out by the law.
Phil said...
Counter-terrorism? Why bring that up? We're talking about airport security.
I'm shocked Phil. Counter-terrorism has become a big part of the airport checkpoint. I'd suggest you continue your research.
Why did I bring this up? Its the short version of the “why dynamics” is added to airport security.
Phil said...
Terrorism is just one tiny risk. We're far more likely to be injured in an automobile wreck than by terrorist activity.
Terrorism has been a hot topic on capital hill and with the general public for a while Phil. The drive for counter-terrorism is self motived (by the people).
Phil said...
"Guards = dynamic security. Tripwires = static security. Dynamic security is better than static security."
Just insert what your asking for Phil under Tripwires. Glad I got you interested in the subject. If nothing comes from this discussion, at least you got something out of it Phil.
Phil said...
We can go and read the rules that we are required by law to follow in all cases except those where TSA is involved.
Are you talking about laws? Or rules with the weight of law(ie executive order)? The law that governs the TSA is the Aviation Transportation Security Act. A Transportation Security Officer asking you to take your shoes off for X-ray screening is not a law Phil. So what are you getting at Phil? By law your only required to submit yourself and your accessible property to screening at the checkpoint. What part of you going through the checkpoint does not fall under the screening process Phil?(If you bring up ID I'm just going to direct you to TK's and mine discussion on the subject)
Thats the only Grey area I can think of Phil.
Phil said...
Please provide links. I've gone through this with other people, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. If you can provide a URI for a place that I can scan the documents you've cited, I'll do a happily search them for "shoes," "breast milk," "3.4 fluid ounces," and "1-quart, resealable, plastic bag".
Authority does not equal a set of rules Phil. It just gives the administrator his power. If you don't agree with what he is doing then you need to restrict the administrators power. Simple.
Phil said...
If a someone from TSA accuses me of wrongdoing, he, I, my lawyer, a judge, or anyone else should be able to read the rule he accused me of violating. We should be able to determine if that rule is constitutional. We should be able to ensure that we are in compliance with the rule. And if you think what I did warrants punishment, a judge or jury should decide whether I violated the rule and deserve punishment. But none of this is the case.
Okay. Tell me if I'm getting this right. You want people to go through court when a violation of TSA rules is found. If I forget my laptop in my bag, then I should be cited, allowed a speedy trail, and then allowed to enter the sterile area before I catch my flight? Sorry Phil if I don't understand.
Just remember Phil. A Transportation Security Officer does not have the power to detain or arrest you. They are not enforcers. If the airport Law Enforcement Officer enforces anything, you can take it to court. The Officer will even tell you what rule, law, and/or regulation your in violation of. If your referencing mis application of TSA rules by TSO's, then that sounds like a training issue. Not something a rule list would ever fix. Why not get to the root of the problem. If you guys are worried about rouge TSO's there are lots of options. You could demand more oversight or harsher administrative punishments for TSO's who do not “follow the rules.”
Phil said...
I've no reason to do so now. I'm quite certain, though, that if you were to publish the rules you require us to follow, lawyers and judges would read them.
Your motives are quite clear sir. No need to discuss them. Thats your business Phil.
Phil said...
I just want you to show me the rules you require me to follow so that I can abide by your rules and go about my business without any hassle from you beyond that which is required for you to verify that I am in compliance with your rules.
A full copy of the SOP, let alone a watered done rule list, would ever make the process hassle free from a passengers perspective. How about we focus on reducing hassle with out reducing security. I think this could be some good middle ground.
Phil said...
I have no way of knowing how many rules were made up on-the-spot when I have flown, because you keep your rules secret. It's impossible for someone to know whether something that one of your baggage inspectors seizes was prohibited by existing rule or by a rule that the inspector made up on-the-fly.
You still would not Phil.
Phil said...
Until you show us the rules, yes, it is fair to believe that TSA makes up rules on the spot.
Fair enough. Seems like a trust issue. Thats something we can work on :)
Phil said...
Yes. TSA endangers everyone's freedom. It subjects us to secret rules and restricts our freedom of movement based on blacklists.
Blacklist. I am assuming you mean the No-fly list? You can challenge that “blacklist” in court If your name is on there Phil, you need to look up Ibrahim vs. Dept of Homeland Security.
I still don't know why your sounding the horn Phil. You only want to get to your plane and all TSA wants is to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. There has to be a happy medium.
Hope you had a good weekend Phil.
-H2H
Phil said...
Thanks for clearing that up, Bob. I'm sure many people wonder why they're waiting in line for a TSA search, seemingly because the checkpoint is understaffed, when some TSA staff are standing around nearby, not performing searches.
About 10 weeks ago, in the "Just Back from BWI - A Thanksgiving Checkpoint Report" post, Paul described his experiences working at a BWI TSA checkpoint, and Lynn later said he'd made a mistake in his post. Despite repeated requests for an update, neither of them have done so. We're really curious about the situation Paul blogged. Could someone please respond to my questions about the post?
Also, although we've repeatedly been told that we should learn the rules you require us to follow at your checkpoints, you at TSA continue to tell us that we will not be allowed to fly if we have liquids portioned into containers larger than 3 fluid ounces, that the limit is 3.4 fluid ounces, and that no liquids are allowed but exceptions are made. Some TSA luggage inspectors insist that liquids are limited by weight, not by volume. You've never explained how volumes or weights of liquids will be measured, and under what circumstances you will simply trust a marking on a container that purports to describe the volume of the container.
Most recently, EoS reader RB received the following response from the TSA Contact Center:
"Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
"Air carriers are responsible for identifying passengers, controlling passengers to checkpoints, controlling gate access, and controlling baggage before and after screening. TSA employees are responsible for all passenger and baggage screening to ensure that prohibited items are not placed on board aircraft. TSA consults regularly with its various partners to effectively integrate their respective security responsibilities.
"Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts.
"Passengers traveling on an international flight from Europe or other foreign countries into the United States, the 3.4 oz containers in the zip lock bag will be accepted in carry on and will not be confiscated at the checkpoint.
"Those passengers traveling from the United States into a foreign country or traveling on a domestic flight within the United States must carry the 3.0 oz containers as carry on in a zip lock bag.
"We encourage you to visit our website at www.tsa.gov for additional information about TSA. We continue to add new information and encourage you to check the website frequently for updated information.
"TSA Contact Center"
Could you please comment on this continued misinformation?
Could you please just publish the rules you require us to follow so that we can avoid all the confusion? You really can't expect us to follow your rules when you refuse to show them to us.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 18, 2009 4:49 PM
***********************************
Okay! After reading this post by Phil, pertaining to a response by TSA Contact, I AM CONFUSED! As a TSO I have enforced the liquid restrictions (yes I said restrictions because that is what it is, not a ban, but restriction), of 3.4 ounces in a one quart sized clear, sealed zip lock bag. Yet at the airport over the loud speaker I still hear "3.0 ounces" and the signs still read "3.0 ounces". TSA: WE ARE NEARLY 3 YEARS INTO THIS THING, CAN WE UPDATE THESE SIGNS PLEASE? Let's give the public the information they NEED to comply with our rules. Now surely you will say, "we have given them the information" but from where I stand, on the "front lines" as you put it, the information is incorrect. This blog was set up, if I remember correctly, to create a dialogue between TSA, and the public. Yet the public on this blog seems very frustrated over not being able to fully comply with the rules they are told they have to follow, because they have no clear definition of what the rules are. Previously, I have suggested a checkpoint brochure to include the rules passengers are required to follow. To date no such brochure exists. What gives guys? I'm out here, dealing with a public that doesn't fully understand why airport A does it differently than airport B. I hear it daily, "it got through (city) airport with no problem, why is it a problem now?" What am I supposed to tell them, "Oh well airport (city) wasn't doing their job"? Is that what I'm supposed to say? Let's keep it real and keep it simple, they need the information on the rules. Publish the brochure containing the rules, and disrtibute it to the checkpoints, so we can give it to the passengers. Its only fair, and it will gain more public trust in our organzation as a whole.
"What makes listening to direction at the checkpoint at that time impossible? Situations change so the experience may not be the same everytime. It is frustrating I know (I have traveled too) but if you just follow directions that are given then you should be able to make it through security with little to no hassle."
This is a profoundly stupid statement. Citizens deserve to know, BEFORE they get to the airport, what rules they are expected to follow. And citizens deserve to know that those rules are not going to be subject to change at the whim of a TSO. That you fail to misunderstand this very, very, very simple point suggests you are too feeble-minded to be allowed outside the house without a keeper.
HTH replied to Phil with "Are we talking about improper seizer(Mr. Gelpack) or proper seizer(ie airport Law Enforcement seizes the gun in your bag)? "
##########
How is anyone supposed to differentiate between an improper seizure and a proper seizure if the rules are not available?
Are good seizures ones where other TSOs agree? Are improper seizures the ones that look bad in retrospect, and then fellow TSOs disavow their colleagues defective application of judgement with some bad-apple comment?
The make-it-up-as-you-go catch-all rule that lets TSOs determine that items on the permitted list are prohibited or items not on the prohibited list are prohibited, are actually used to justify any seizure. There is no effective recourse for the traveller when a TSO and TSO supervisor make one of these flawed judgements.
Why do improper seizures happen, and how
can they be avoided?
The poor management of TSA is evident when it shows it cannot communicate its rules to its own employees. That TSA won't share the rules it expects the public to follow is more evidence of poor management. TSA uses secrecy to try to hide its incompetence.
Secretary Napolitano, please consider TSO Tom to head the TSA.
He's about the only TSA employee that we've come across here who has his brain in the right place.
Thanks, TSO Tom, for your input.
Sandra said...
Secretary Napolitano, please consider TSO Tom to head the TSA.
He's about the only TSA employee that we've come across here who has his brain in the right place.
Thanks, TSO Tom, for your input.
February 24, 2009 12:30 PM
***********************************
Sandra, I say what I say because my job is difficult enough without having to deal with a frustrated public. My ideal day goes like this:
I wake up, refreshed and ready to go to work, knowing that I'm gonna have a good day. I get to work, and the public is smiling as they go through the checkpoint effortlessly. I go through my rotations and the day is smooth, no airplanes go down, and I go home at the end of my shift. But as it stands now, this is NOT the case, I wake up ready and willing to do my job, but the public is often times frustrated when I have to take their liquids because they got through another airport with those same liquids, or they didn't know the proper size or they didn't know their flip flops had to come off too...etc. And at the end of the day, I'm tired, frustrated and my morale has taken a beating. But I do it day in and day out, because I believe in the work I do. I just need a little support from the higher ups, and that comes by giving the public the information they need to traverse through our checkpoints knowing that they have complied fully with all "published" rules. So I say it again to my employer PLEASE, PUBLISH THIS BROCHURE AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE AT EVERY POINT OF CONTACT AT THE AIRPORT BEFORE THE CHECKPOINT. Start with the airlines, make sure they have the correct information, because alot of times, passengers get incorrect info from the airlines. Give them the brochures and require them to hand them to the passengers. Make the brochure available at the TDC area, and at the metal detector so that passengers know what to do. Guess what guys? The passengers just got happier, and my job just got easier and the checkpoint is a CALMER ENVIRONMENT!
TSO Tom's life would also be easier if TSA dropped its pointless mandatory shoe removal and its liquid policies, neither of which do anything to enhance the safety of anyone.
TSA is idiots, and here's why: Trusting a piece of paper that the passengers present to you as the rules is as misguided as trusting them to print out a boarding pass for your ID checking--A potential terrorist could print out altered documents.
Mr. Gel pack that is not what I meant. Sorry for not going into more detail. I meant that when I dealt with the situation it showed me that my officer did give the passenger false information and the passenger knew it. It help me to mentor my officer and correct him. Thanks for wondering but we do not accept things that just anyone can make themselves.
Anonymous posted...
TSO Tom's life would also be easier if TSA dropped its pointless mandatory shoe removal and its liquid policies, neither of which do anything to enhance the safety of anyone.
Enough with people posting things they still believe after being shown the information. READ! We would go backward in security and create more holes without these limitations in place.
Anonymous wrote:
"TSO Tom's life would also be easier if TSA dropped its pointless mandatory shoe removal and its liquid policies, neither of which do anything to enhance the safety of anyone."
I completely agree with that. I believe that most screeners who are able to think don't particularly support the shoe and liquids circus.
TSO Tom, what are your feelings on shoe removal and liquids restrictions?
Bob said...
"Do you think the Steelers would give their playbook to the Cardinals? Sure the Cardinals have probably reviewed hours of footage from past games, but that doesn’t mean they know all of the Steelers plays and when and why they make them."
...................
RB said...
"No one is asking for the play books, just the rules to the game that both the Steelers and Cardinals have and must follow to play the game."
.....................
Bob, you want to try again about why we travelers cannot have a copy of the rules we must comply with?
You have correctly proven that there is a difference between rules and procedures.
We are not asking for TSA procedures, just the rules we must comply with in order to move freely about the country.
Thanks for your misstep Bob, I couldn't have done better if I had tried!
I have read the comments pertaining to TSA stopping the removal of shoes and it makes me wonder if these folks know why TSA has this rule. How else would YOU stop the next Richard Reid from succeeding in taking down an airplane with a bomb concealed in his/her shoes?
LTSO with answers :
One glaring counterexample to your "we do not accept things that just anyone can make themselves," is accepting passenger printed boarding passes as evidence that the person is not on the no fly list.
I'm a bit comforted that if a terrorist printed up something that said plastic whips were permitted, your agents wouldn't necessarily trust it. The disconnection between what TSA tells the public and how the TSA actually trains its officers makes it entirely possible that some of the "bad apple" TSOs might actually trust a forged printout of a TSA "rule".
So, if I print out and show the pages on baby formula and gel packs for medical items, will TSA let us keep breast milk from spoiling? Can anyone guarantee that?
TSO Jacob writes:
How else would YOU stop the next Richard Reid from succeeding in taking down an airplane with a bomb concealed in his/her shoes?
I don't know for certain, and I don't want to be flippant about my answer. But I suppose we could stop the next Richard Reid the same way that we stopped the last Richard Reid: by having observant flight attendants and passengers stopping the attacker.
There has not been a "next Richard Reid." No one was trying to hide bombs in their shoes before Reid, and no one has tried since. And this has nothing to do with TSA's policy: No one has tried to do this in the many, many countries that do not require the show carnival, nor did anyone try to do this during the period when TSA did not require the shoe carnival, post-Reid and pre-3.4-1-1. The simple fact of the matter, contrary to the lies TSA tells us, is that no one is trying to hide bombs in their shoes.
Sandra said...
Anonymous wrote:
"TSO Tom's life would also be easier if TSA dropped its pointless mandatory shoe removal and its liquid policies, neither of which do anything to enhance the safety of anyone."
I completely agree with that. I believe that most screeners who are able to think don't particularly support the shoe and liquids circus.
TSO Tom, what are your feelings on shoe removal and liquids restrictions?
February 24, 2009 7:14 PM
***********************************
Sandra;
without getting into specifics, I will talk about these two current requirements:
Shoes:
In MY opinion, Sandra, removal of shoes is currently the most efficient way to screen for prohibited items, especially IED's. Now I know that alot of people feel its a useless procedure, but if you've seen some of the things I've seen on checkpoint, you might think otherwise.
Liquids:
MY feelings on liquids is you can't have it both ways. In other words, its either a total ban on all liquids or remove restrictions all together. Now I know that a total ban on all liquids is not a very popular idea, and my employer knows that as well. But from what I know, intelligence suggests that removing the restrictions at this point would not be in the best interest of the flying public either. So unfortunately, at this point Sandra, we are stuck with the liquids restriction, and the shoe requirement which as I stated, x-ray screening is the most efficient way to screen for prohibited items at this point in time. Hopefully, TSA will deploy new technology in the near future that will alleviate the shoe requirement. And new technology is already being deployed to alleviate some of the liquids requirements, but again, I will not go into specifics in this forum. Just keep in mind that there is a reason for everything we do, and it may appear useless to you, and I know that its annoying to you, trust me when I say I don't want to make you take your shoes off and I don't want to take your water, but at this point there is no alternative.
"trust me when I say I don't want to make you take your shoes off and I don't want to take your water, but at this point there is no alternative."
Of course there is: Don't take citizens' shoes, and don't take citizens' water. TSA has yet to provide any credible evidence supporting a need for its current shoe and liquid policies. It should present such evidence, if it exists (SPOILER ALERT! It doesn't), or else end these policies.
Sandra said: I believe that most screeners who are able to think don't particularly support the shoe and liquids circus.
Sandra, I disagree with your statement. I will always support the shoe "circus" as you call it b/c as it has been stated many times before, shoes can conceal so much, explosives being our main concern. You have no idea the continual training courses we take online that show us the threat that shoes can pose and pictures of what is possible and HAS been found. I agree it would be hard to conceal things in a flip flop but when you give a TSO the permission to decifer which shoes should/should not be taken off, you get lazy ones that allow passengers to keep shoes on that should have been taken off. Or you get arguments from passengers that they were allowed to wear them thru another airport, so they should here, etc. It makes no sense to hold up security for yet another controversy. Its easier to make one flat rule, so there is no question on either party and security can run smoother.
That's why I think it should go back to NO LIQUIDS at all. It would eliminate all question and people would double check bags for liquids they dont want to lose before packing up and going thru security. No more "Well, I got this thru another airport", or "it's only got 1oz. in it." The liquids issue has gotten way out of hand in my opinion.
So until they do change it, if you come thru with oversized liquids, don't argue, b/c you know you are violating the rule. If you didn't know they rules, listen to your options, b/c you do have a right to take them back out of security and do what you please with them. (give to family, go check a bag, put in car, etc.) Just b/c you don't have time to do so (that's why they say get to airport 2 hrs early), doesn't mean the option isn't there besides
"surrendering". Whether you agree with that rule or not doesn't mean you dont have to follow. You can't blame the TSA for your wrong doing.
Venting a little today, sorry.
SDF TSO
OK, KellyMae, tell us: if a pair of shoes goes through the x-ray packed in carry-on luggage can a screener "decifer" if those shoes have been altered and if they contain contraband?
I believe it is highly unlikely.
Therefore, what is to stop one from going through the checkpoint and into the "sterile" area (that's another joke), and changing shoes to the pair that has been altered? Or just continuing their trip with the altered shoes in their carry-on.
Anon said: There has not been a "next Richard Reid." No one was trying to hide bombs in their shoes before Reid, and no one has tried since. And this has nothing to do with TSA's policy: No one has tried to do this in the many, many countries that do not require the show carnival, nor did anyone try to do this during the period when TSA did not require the shoe carnival, post-Reid and pre-3.4-1-1
Regardless of what you think "hasn't" happened or will never will happen, if we change it and allow shoes to remain on, who's to say that someone won't try again? You cannot guarantee a situation won't happen in the future purely on the fact that it didn't happen in the past.
Many of you "think" we haven't found explosives in bags, so I guess we should stop testing for explosives b/c no planes have been blown up since 9/11.
Sorry....NEXT
SDF TSO
Anon said:OK, KellyMae, tell us: if a pair of shoes goes through the x-ray packed in carry-on luggage can a screener "decifer" if those shoes have been altered and if they contain contraband?
That's why they go thru x-ray. We ARE trained what to look for, and if something doesn't look right, we test it and visually inspect. If someone put explosives in a shoe, it will look bad regardless if they are outside the bag or in it.
SDF TSO
kellymae81 wrote...
That's why I think it should go back to NO LIQUIDS at all. It would eliminate all question and people would double check bags for liquids they dont want to lose before packing up and going thru security.
...you do have a right to take them back out of security and do what you please with them. (give to family, go check a bag, put in car, etc.) Just b/c you don't have time to do so (that's why they say get to airport 2 hrs early), doesn't mean the option isn't there besides
"surrendering". Whether you agree with that rule or not doesn't mean you dont have to follow.
...
Venting a little today, sorry.
SDF TSO
________________
For a number of reasons I cannot agree with your sentiments.
If I'm on a quick turn-around trip where there is no other way to meet the needed date/time other than flying thousands of miles, and I'm returning home from that trip with nothing but a carry-on and my laptop, I do not have the "give to family, go check a bag, put in car, etc."
Family is a thousand miles away, as are my car and my checkable luggage.
If I require specific liquids for my health, they MUST travel with me and be accessible.
Even before the TSA insanity one was ALWAYS told not to pack those things essential to one's well being - carry them with you.
Don't give me the "guilty until proven innocent routine" when I probably have a higher clearance than you have EVER had.
If you want to confiscate (require the "voluntary abandonment" of) my personal belongings you better have a damned good reason and proof that those possessions are a threat to aviation, not just something from some secret rule - or even worse, some "rule" made up on the spot by some mouth-breathing bag checker with nothing better to do.
It is becoming obvious that the only way that TSA will change it's view of what and how it does the very limited job it was created to do under law, is when it is challenged in court.
Yeah, I'm venting a bit, too...
Now lets all go to a neutral corner and try to be reasonable beings. ;o)
Tomas
Tomas said:Don't give me the "guilty until proven innocent routine" when I probably have a higher clearance than you have EVER had.
Who gives a flying fart in space? You want a cookie? I guess you never heard of a dirty cop? I don't care what kind of "clearance" you think you have, you are no better than anyone else on here so quit acting like you are. I've had to pat down the highest ranking military person even though they are probably on their way to Iraq to serve our country (including YOU) and they didnt think THEY were above it. And I didn't think I was some hot shot patting someone down with probably a "higher clearance" than me. Get off your high horse please.
Sorry, ya'll got me going today. Maybe I'll be in a better mood tomorrow! :)
SDF TSO
Anonymous said...
"trust me when I say I don't want to make you take your shoes off and I don't want to take your water, but at this point there is no alternative."
Of course there is: Don't take citizens' shoes, and don't take citizens' water. TSA has yet to provide any credible evidence supporting a need for its current shoe and liquid policies. It should present such evidence, if it exists (SPOILER ALERT! It doesn't), or else end these policies.
***********************************
Anonymous;
I won't argue with you over "credible evidence" existing or not existing. I will tell you that I have seen in training, actual examples of what could be done with a pair of flip flops or what appears to be a bottle of water. Again, I can not and will not go into specifics in this forum, but these examples reinforced my belief in the shoes policy and strengthend my belief in the liquids policy. Until such time as we have an affective means of screening these items and determining that no threats exist, I'm sorry to say, this is what we have to deal with.
TSO Tom, did you ever stop to think that you are seeing and hearing only what the TSA wants you to see and hear about liquid explosives and shoe bombs.
Perhaps if you heard the other side of the argument, you might feel differently.
"I will tell you that I have seen in training, actual examples of what could be done with a pair of flip flops or what appears to be a bottle of water. Again, I can not and will not go into specifics in this forum, but these examples reinforced my belief in the shoes policy and strengthend my belief in the liquids policy."
TSA needs to put up or shut up. If TSA has such proof of the grave danger from shampoo and flip-flops, it must share that proof with the public or continue to be hated, mocked, and feared by patriotic citizens.
So is the shoe thing supposed to prevent the possibility that many Richard Reids would simultaneously threaten to light their shoes on fire and hijack the planes into another 9/11?
What is the movie-plot fantasy that TSA is wasting our resources on?
Sandra said...
TSO Tom, did you ever stop to think that you are seeing and hearing only what the TSA wants you to see and hear about liquid explosives and shoe bombs.
Perhaps if you heard the other side of the argument, you might feel differently.
February 26, 2009 11:20 AM
***********************************
Sandra;
I'm glad that we're having this conversation because it does give me an insight as to what the public is thinking. But until I have clear evidence that NO ONE will EVER use the devices that I have seen represented in our training, I will continue to enforce with strong belief the liquids and shoes policy, whether or not I agree with them. That said, at this point it is what it is...might that change? Yeah it might. Or it might not. But lets make the best of what we've got right now. The information that we have is that shoes and the modifications that can be made to shoes, represent a real threat, and that's what we have. The technology we have is not the greatest, and the best form of screening shoes at this point is X-RAY. That's what we have, so lets make the best of it. You want to get to your flight and I want you get to your destination safely, so 5 minutes without your shoes is a minor inconvenience in comparison to what MIGHT happen if someone DID try to blow up a plane. Look at it this way, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it can't happen, or that it won't happen, or that some ingenious idiot isn't thinking of trying it. We're not dealing with rocket scientists, we're dealing with terrorists. The bottom line Sandra is that the shoe policy and the liquids restrictions remain in force at this time. My whoe reason for posting in this thread was to ask my employer to publish a checkpoint brochure that would detail the rules you are required to follow when you arrive at our checkpoints. I went two steps further by adding this suggestion to our idea factory, and sending an email directly to our acting administrator, Gale Rossides. I hope TSA admin heeds my suggestion and makes this brochure a reality. Sandra thanks for keeping it civil as I know that sometimes TSO's and the public come off with strong opinions and those opinions are often the cause of conflict on this forum.
I am not sure why this blog was even posted. It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around. I don't see a sign posted at local restaurants saying, the reason you see us all gathered in the back of the resaurant doing nothing is because we are having our shift briefing. No one should even care. Most places do have briefs at the start of a shift. If you don't already know that, tough.
Anonymous said...
I am not sure why this blog was even posted. It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around. I don't see a sign posted at local restaurants saying, the reason you see us all gathered in the back of the resaurant doing nothing is because we are having our shift briefing. No one should even care. Most places do have briefs at the start of a shift. If you don't already know that, tough.
February 26, 2009 2:27 PM
***********************************
Anonymous;
Everything we do is the business of the public, whether we like it or not. What the public needs to realize is that our Government (not just TSA), operates in a manner that NOT everything is disclosed to them as they feel it should be. The reality here is that some things are better left unsaid, now I know I'll catch some flack for that statement, but its true. If we told the public about every possible threat that we found at the checkpoint, we'd likely have mass chaos at our airports. People would not want to fly, and though they would know that we were catching things, they would wonder about the one thing that might slip through on their plane. So no we don't tell them everything, but yes we do have an accountability to them. We must never become cocky and believe its none of their business when in reality it is.
Anonymous writes:
It is no one's business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around. I don't see a sign posted at local restaurants saying, the reason you see us all gathered in the back of the restaurant doing nothing is because we are having our shift briefing. No one should even care.
Except that if I went to a restaurant and was sitting at a table, and no-one was coming to take my order, and I saw a large number of waitstaff standing around doing nothing, I'd care.
Passengers have approached checkpoints which don't have all screening lanes open, while standing in long lines in order to get to that point, and see large numbers of TSA employees standing around, seemingly doing nothing. It's not unreasonable to wonder why those employees aren't staffing the closed lanes. Bob's answer gives a perfectly reasonable explanation: the large number of people "standing around" are, in fact, performing their assigned duties (receiving a shift brief), and none of those people would be available to open the additional screening lanes.
To Anonymous, who said at 2:27 pm
"I am not sure why this blog was even posted. It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around."
----------------
It is exactly that kind of statement that shows how you and your management think that you are above answering to anybody. It is our busines to know why you are standing around. We have the right to know how you are spending our money.
I am not sure why this blog was even posted. It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around. I don't see a sign posted at local restaurants saying, the reason you see us all gathered in the back of the resaurant doing nothing is because we are having our shift briefing. No one should even care. Most places do have briefs at the start of a shift. If you don't already know that, tough.
I want to know what my tax dollars are doing for my country. Believe me TSA is a new agency and one we see much more than the FBI or other agency. TSA is involved with everyday life and I want it to do everything correctly. I HAVE the RIGHT to know what TSA does. If you don't feel that way quit your job and become a citizen again and not a federal employee that has a big ego.
-James
Jim, it only takes a matter of seconds to set off a properly assembled IED. The only reason Richard Reid was unsuccessful was that he damaged his detonator. In other words, the flight attendants and passengers on that plane are extremely lucky they are still breathing.
Anonymous said… The simple fact of the matter, contrary to the lies TSA tells us, is that no one is trying to hide bombs in their shoes.
The simple fact is that many people do hide things in their shoes. It is easy to do and hard to discover unless you actually take the shoes off of a person’s feet. That is why shanks and drugs are commonly found in shoes. Once again I will ask, how would you stop terrorists from smuggling bombs in their shoes without the “security theater”.
Anonymous said… if a pair of shoes goes through the x-ray packed in carry-on luggage can a screener "decipher" if those shoes have been altered and if they contain contraband? I believe it is highly unlikely.
You are totally wrong on this one. TSOs can tell if a shoe has been altered, even in your bag, if we can get the shoes into the x-ray.
On another note, I find it quite amusing that so many people are writing in about secret rules that they know all about. Obviously the “secret rule” that you can’t take large containers of liquids into the cabin of the aircraft got out. What I can’t figure out is who told.
"It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around"
I am a TSO at ohare and i have to disagree with this statement mainly because as a federal employee and a TSA officer, people's tax dollars are being used to pay us along with the 9-11 security fee that all passengers pay.
TSO Tom said...
Anonymous said...
"trust me when I say I don't want to make you take your shoes off and I don't want to take your water, but at this point there is no alternative."
Of course there is: Don't take citizens' shoes, and don't take citizens' water. TSA has yet to provide any credible evidence supporting a need for its current shoe and liquid policies. It should present such evidence, if it exists (SPOILER ALERT! It doesn't), or else end these policies.
***********************************
Anonymous;
I won't argue with you over "credible evidence" existing or not existing. I will tell you that I have seen in training, actual examples of what could be done with a pair of flip flops or what appears to be a bottle of water. Again, I can not and will not go into specifics in this forum, but these examples reinforced my belief in the shoes policy and strengthend my belief in the liquids policy. Until such time as we have an affective means of screening these items and determining that no threats exist, I'm sorry to say, this is what we have to deal with.
February 26, 2009 10:08 AM
.......................
Would not the Puffer machines detect shoes that had been modified into an IED? Would not the same machine detect many other possible explosive items.
TSA has the technology yet has apparently abandoned the one tool that detects explosives.
Why?
Anonymous said...
I am not sure why this blog was even posted. It is no ones business and we should not have to explain why we are standing around. I don't see a sign posted at local restaurants saying, the reason you see us all gathered in the back of the resaurant doing nothing is because we are having our shift briefing. No one should even care. Most places do have briefs at the start of a shift. If you don't already know that, tough.
February 26, 2009 2:27 PM
........................
Another TSA employee who does not understand the difference between working for the government and working in a private enterprise.
In one you do not have to explain anything to the citizens, in the other you do!
February 26, 2009 10:08 AM
.......................
Would not the Puffer machines detect shoes that had been modified into an IED? Would not the same machine detect many other possible explosive items.
TSA has the technology yet has apparently abandoned the one tool that detects explosives.
Why?
February 26, 2009 11:52 PM
***********************************
Anon;
the puffer is not flawless, and can not be deployed in all airports for various reasons, including space limitations, air quality, etc. So as I stated before, currently the only accurate way of detecting IED's in shoes is via x-ray inspection. Sorry guys.
"So as I stated before, currently the only accurate way of detecting IED's in shoes is via x-ray inspection."
How many IEDs has TSA found in shoes? Hint: The answer is zero.
No one but Reid tried to use a shoe-IED on a plane before the shoe policy. No one is trying to use shoe-IEDs on planes in every other country that does not mandate the show carnival. When TSA says there is a genuine threat of IEDs in shoes, TSA is lying. This is not a matter that is open for debate; it is settled fact.
Anonymous said...
"So as I stated before, currently the only accurate way of detecting IED's in shoes is via x-ray inspection."
How many IEDs has TSA found in shoes? Hint: The answer is zero.
No one but Reid tried to use a shoe-IED on a plane before the shoe policy. No one is trying to use shoe-IEDs on planes in every other country that does not mandate the show carnival. When TSA says there is a genuine threat of IEDs in shoes, TSA is lying. This is not a matter that is open for debate; it is settled fact.
February 27, 2009 10:17 AM
***********************************
Settled fact? That's funny, anon. Thanks for the humor, have a great day.
"Settled fact? That's funny, anon. Thanks for the humor, have a great day."
I note that you provide no rebuttal, merely snark, which is what TSA resorts to when it's out of lies.
How many IEDs has TSA found in shoes? Hint: The answer is zero.
That doesn't go to show that the policy is not working. If you are doing something to counter a smuggling technique then why would you try to technique with more % chance of getting caught. Say a terrorist hides something in his shoe. He has more chance of getting caught with TSA's shoe madness than with TSA allowing everyone to leave their shoes on. It lowers the vulnerablity of secuirty being breached. Common sense I think. Think outside the box. TSA may not find IED shoes but they are indirectly preventing people from tying it again. Think of it as there is a brick wall and beside the wall is a door. No one is going to try to go through the brick wall when there is a door there. The brick wall is the shoe policy and the door is items hidden in place TSA can't go like body cavities.
-James
Anonymous said...
"Settled fact? That's funny, anon. Thanks for the humor, have a great day."
I note that you provide no rebuttal, merely snark, which is what TSA resorts to when it's out of lies.
February 28, 2009 9:02 AM
***********************************
Anon;
I do apologize, I was kind of sarcastic with you. That's not my goal. To be quite honest with you, its not my position to provide rebuttal on whether or not its settled fact. Obviously, there are only certain things I can post on this blog without divulging SSI which would never make it into my published post anyway. But there have been incidents of altered shoes, whether they were altered to conceal explosives or not, we'll never know. But I have SEEN altered shoes, hollowed out shoes, etc. The only way to detect altered shoes is to view them on x-ray, and physical inspection. To do this, they must first be removed from the wearer's foot. There is no "settled fact" in our world anon. Sorry to disappoint you.
This really is going nowhere.
Was a interesting read though. Plenty of effort spent in DISCUSSION.
OK. I've read the post about "Shift Briefs" and all the comments. But I still don't understand how periodically rearranging TSOs' underwear does anything to enhance security. I guess it must be one of those SSI "layers of security" that Kip used to talk about.
Oh no. the "man" is trying to keep us down. pfft. give me a break people. with all of your comments like "dont you wonder if thats what THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK." some people are wayyyyyyyyyyy to into conspiracy theories. *rolls eyes
Many of you "think" we haven't found explosives in bags, so I guess we should stop testing for explosives b/c no planes have been blown up since 9/11.
Kellymae, the planes crashed. No bombs were detonated on board the aircraft. It was a bluff move by the terrorists to take control.
Nice try though. Might consider reading up on some recent history though.
That doesn't go to show that the policy is not working. If you are doing something to counter a smuggling technique then why would you try to technique with more % chance of getting caught. Say a terrorist hides something in his shoe. He has more chance of getting caught with TSA's shoe madness than with TSA allowing everyone to leave their shoes on.
Anon said: Kellymae, the planes crashed. No bombs were detonated on board the aircraft. It was a bluff move by the terrorists to take control. Nice try though. Might consider reading up on some recent history though.
-----------------------------------
I never said the planes in 9/11 got "blown up" by bombs, I just said no planes have been blown up SINCE or POST 9/11....basically what I meant by that whole entire statement is that no planes have gone down by bombs after 9/11 and TSA was put in place. Sadly, by the standards of so many of you on this blog, we should just stop all screening for explosives on that fact alone in order to have a faster, more convenient security experience. Convenience over safety? Not on my watch.
Okay, so when a TSA officer is seen talking into a cell phone, I can rest assured that he or she is not doing so for personal reasons. I got that. But how about when a group of TSA officers are standing around off to the side waiting for a shift change to go on duty and relieve their fellow officers who are working to keep the country safe, how can I be sure that they are not simply chatting about the weather or talking about other personal things and that they are only discussing work and security related issues? I mean, what's the difference? If an officer is not allowed to talk on a cell phone for personal reasons while on duty, and the officer does so, how would I know that too? Are these cell phone calls logged and verified later? And if officers are talking about the latest sports event on television instead of focusing on the upcoming work shift and their responsibilities while waiting for their shift change, aren't they also putting the safety of Joe Citizen in danger just as much as the fficer on a personal cell phone call? At a subconscious mind level, I am sure I can figure this out on my own, but I was just asking.
@Iago de Otto-I am a TSA employee at SDF and I'm sorry, but I just had to say something. Yes, there are many reasons you will see us standing around. If we are in a group by the checkpoint, its bc we are either being briefed, signing in and coming onto our shift or getting ready to leave/and or return from a break/lunch. So just like any other Joe Shmoe, we are people, who have a job, WHO GET BREAKS and also can do WHATERVER we want on those breaks, INCLUDING, talking on our cell phones..we have lives too!! And just bc we are on our cell phones or standing around does not mean that the skies are not being protected. There are others that are working while we are on said breaks!! I love how the 'outsiders' to TSA think we are suppose to be robots or something. So sorry if I sound irritated, but its because I AM! I'm so sick of everyone judging TSA and its employees and thinking we are nobodys bc we dont do EXACTLY what you think we ought to do. I work hard and have been a model TSO for 5 years now you can think twice before I think I have to conform to what you think I should be. And I will talk to my coworkers on my breaks and talk on my cell phone on my personal time all I want to, but thanks for your concern!
Post a Comment