We want you! That’s right, we want your input. I know, I know, there are thousands of comments within this blog overflowing with input you’ve given us, and I have already sent in my top 5 based on feedback I've read from the blog.What do we want? TSA wants to better communicate the “Why’s” behind security to the traveling public, and to do so, we need your expertise. We want you to send us the top 5 questions you have about TSA’s security procedures. What “Why” questions would you like to see addressed?
Your responses will be reviewed and the most common questions will help us generate signage and other materials that address the concerns that flying public has.
This is a huge collaborative project that not only includes you, but the TSA workforce as well. The results should be interesting.
Please provide responses by 5 p.m. EDT Monday, July 27, 2009 to OPAfeedback@dhs.gov This is not a blog project, I'm just providing a virtual megaphone, so please make sure to submit your feedback to the provided e-mail address. By all means, you can post your top 5 here, but make sure you send them to OPAfeedback@dhs.gov
Thanks!
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
99 comments:
Top 5? What are we having a sale? Whatever happened to the top 10?
For what it's worth, here's my five:
1. Why does "identity matter"? If a person on the no-fly list has been thoroughly screened and shown not to be carrying any dangerous items, why shouldn't they be allowed to fly?
2. Why are airline and airport employees not screened like passengers? Given the recent news articles regarding such employees who have used their screening exemptions to bring prohibited items into the sterile area, why
does TSA continue to permit this hole in security?
3. Why does TSA continue to announce in its signage that liquids are limited to 3 ounces, when the real limit is 100ml?
4. Why does TSA continue to tell passengers that they are "required" to show approved ID in order to fly, when in fact TSA has established procedures for allowing passengers to fly without ID?
5. Why does TSA expend resources on conducting redundant screenings at gates, rather than focusing more on improving the effectiveness of screenings at the checkpoint?
I get the impression that nobody in the TSA has bothered to read the hundreds of questions in this blog that we have asked over & over again. Nobody in the TSA has actually attempted to answer any of them in a manner that is actually credible.
Since the same people will be reading these questions who read the blog questions (I won't even begin to assume that the same people will actually answer them.), I have zero confidence that the quality of the responses will be any different. For example, why should I expect Francine to start providing Supreme Court-quality answers to legitimate legal questions?
The only advantage to you is that, using this Q&A format, you don't have to entertain any follow-up comments.
You can certainly accuse me of prejudging this latest exercise. But, you (Royal "you") have the well-documented track record on this blog to support nothing but the lowest expectations.
Chris, I'd like to thank you for apparently skipping the first paragraph of my post and also for being a great communicator here on the blog. Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
OK, I'll bite:
1. When will TSA mandate, and enforce, real standards at checkpoints? In Dallas, TX my pair of 3-inch school scissors (rounded end) was OK. But when I came back thru Lexington, KY they were suddenly verboten and were confiscated. Assuming there are any standards at all, one of those checkpoints wasn't following them.
2. Why do some people (airline and airport employees) get to breeze thru security with (at best) random searches? The recent incident of the gun being passed thru security by an airport worker for a passenger clearly demands a response.
3. Why doesn't TSA hold people publicly accountable for illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior? To this day, the public's only assurance of justice is TSA's "trust us, we did something about it" statements. You don't seem to have any problem publicizing the good news, though. No wonder no one trusts the TSA.
4. When will TSA give out straight answers to legal questions? Privacy Act questions were answered with no cites, questions about TSA's authority to detain people who travel with money, and concerns about confiscation of personal property have all been answered with hand waving and double talk.
5. Why does TSA seem to go out its way to aggravate people? You either have no standards, poorly define standards or fail to enforce existing standards and then have the temerity to wonder why people get angry. There's no way you can be that stupid. Do you do it on purpose?
I second Jim Huggins's questions.
I also pose some of my own:
1) How can we get insight into the processes by which people are put "on a list", so to speak, and what data the TSA and other governmental agencies keeps on us?
2) What is your formal stance on the carrying of cash through checkpoints that does not exceed legal amounts?
3) What TSA offices or oversight committees exist to protect passengers' civil rights and privacy, and can you give examples of where review by those offices or committees have resulted in a change in a plan before it was implemented?
2) What is your formal stance on the carrying of cash through checkpoints that does not exceed legal amounts?
............................
This is very important.
Cash is not illegal in any amount.
TSA is not tasked by any law to control cash or have over $10,000 dollars of cash declared to TSA or one of its TSO's.
No amount of cash carried on an aircraft is a threat to that flight.
Bob, if you have thousands of questions already, most of which have never been answered,then why on earth do you need more?
Can we expect more of the none answered that have been given on the rare occasion that TSA attempts to answer questions?
Lets start with one easy question:
Where are all the specific rules that TSA requires a traveler to comply with printed and available for review?
We are not asking for general laws applicable outside of a TSA Checkpoint, just those that TSA imposes on citizens of this country.
How much safer does TSA make us? And why should we believe you?
Chris Boyce said...
"Since the same people will be reading these questions who read the blog questions (I won't even begin to assume that the same people will actually answer them.), I have zero confidence that the quality of the responses will be any different. For example, why should I expect Francine to start providing Supreme Court-quality answers to legitimate legal questions?"
Can I ask why you would ask bloggers legal questions? Shouldn't you ask that of a lawyer if you expect a professional answer? Don't you find fault in yourself asking questions of those who you believe are not qualified to answer them? Doesn't some fault lay with you for asking the wrong people professional specific questions?
Why has TSA been less than truthful about the quality of the images that the MMW WBI produces?
RB said...
"2) What is your formal stance on the carrying of cash through checkpoints that does not exceed legal amounts?
............................
This is very important.
Cash is not illegal in any amount.
TSA is not tasked by any law to control cash or have over $10,000 dollars of cash declared to TSA or one of its TSO's.
No amount of cash carried on an aircraft is a threat to that flight."
Again we find that RB resorts to telling lies. TSA has never required anyone to declare their cash to TSA or TSO's. By twisting words, you do nothing more than lie.
You know very well from this blog that TSO checks to see if large amounts of cash was declared to the proper agency.
But even though you have been told this many time, I doubt it will stop you from lying and claiming that TSA says large amounts of cash must be declared to TSA.
If you don't like the fact that TSA has been tasked with this responsibility, that is ok. Make that your argument. But its beneath you to lie and change the facts to attempt to win your argument.
Bob arrogantly posted:
Blogger Bob said...
Chris, I'd like to thank you for apparently skipping the first paragraph of my post and also for being a great communicator here on the blog. Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Sorry, pal, I did read your entire post. Your attitude speaks volumes. Do you care to tell us your top five? You wouldn't have a "top five" if you and your agency had bothered to provide the American People with credible answers in the first place.
You know very well from this blog that TSO checks to see if large amounts of cash was declared to the proper agency.
How does that work - exactly - when I am not obligated to declare any amount of cash to any government agency if I am traveling within the United States? If I am traveling with 10 cents or $10 million in cash, it's nobody's business, including the TSA.
Also, since I don't have to file any paperwork regarding taking $10K+ out of the country until I actually step on the plane, how can the TSA verify that I have filed the proper paperwork if I can do so once I pass through security? There are plenty of airports that have CBP desks AFTER security where one can file the appropriate paperwork.
I've got just one for you, so maybe by being frugal, it will get answered!
Please describe ONE policy or procedure implemented by the TSA, & the TSA alone that, had it been in place on 9/10/01, would have prevented the hijackings on 9/11/01.
Remember, keeping flight deck doors locked & no longer cooperating w/hijackers was done by the airlines & banning of box cutters, which was purely symbolic given that scissors w/blades much bigger are still allowed, pre-dates the inception of the TSA so all of these are off limits for purposes of answering the question.
The hijackings of 9/11/01 are referenced over & over by members of the TSA, including Blogger Bob right here on this blog, as the reason for TSA's existence. If this is not simply for purposes of fearmongering amongst the traveling Kettles, this should be a very easy question to answer.
Unless, of course, nothing the TSA has done would have prevented said hijackings?
Does the TSA have any reservation about the no-fly list; where is the fair trial?
For all the threats does the TSA recognise that 99.99% of all travellers are no threat to anybody and should be treated accordingly; another case of offices presuming people guilty from the off. A civil attitude would not diminish officers effectiveness.
Only two points... may I come back later and add!?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Again we find that RB resorts to telling lies. TSA has never required anyone to declare their cash to TSA or TSO's. By twisting words, you do nothing more than lie.
You know very well from this blog that TSO checks to see if large amounts of cash was declared to the proper agency.
But even though you have been told this many time, I doubt it will stop you from lying and claiming that TSA says large amounts of cash must be declared to TSA.
*************
The only time we need to declare cash is to customs when we leave the United States, so please explain why the TSA has declared sums over $10,000 contraband even when traveling inside the United States. Especially when it is not against any law to travel with any amount of cash inside the United States.
Bob, didn't the TSA do this same thread last year. If I recall correctly the top five were cherry picked and we got a lot of non-answers?
I have figured it all out. The reason people on this blog are so confused is because they have poor reading comprehension. Come on people, take time to read.
Anonymous wrote:
"Can I ask why you would ask bloggers legal questions?"
Because the TSA's entire being is about legal and Constitutional issues, that's why.
From Francine, the Googling TSA attorney, herself:
"Since there are no lawyers on the blog team, they asked me to weigh in on some comments that have come into the blog on legal and constitutional issues. I'm the Chief Counsel at TSA, Francine Kerner, and I hope I can provide some useful information to those interested in the legal aspects of the screening process."
Regarding the TSA asking people about the money they are carrying, I also quote Francine:
"Sometimes a TSA officer may ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash to account for the money."
uk visa lawyer said...
“Does the TSA have any reservation about the no-fly list; where is the fair trial?”
------------------------------------------
Well, since there is no criminal charges associated with being on the list then there is no need for a trial. Nor is being on the list violating someone’s rights. I have a list, of folks I wont let into my house. It includes the current president of the USA, and its not violating anyone’s rights either.
------------------------------------------
“For all the threats does the TSA recognise that 99.99% of all travellers are no threat to anybody and should be treated accordingly; another case of offices presuming people guilty from the off. A civil attitude would not diminish officers effectiveness.”
------------------------------------------
Please take a moment to tell me which 0.01% of the travelers I should be looking for and I will screen only them. A name and description would be more than helpful, after a while passengers begin to look all the same.
1. How does identify make any difference for the security of an aircraft?
2. if someone is on the no fly list and they show up at the airport why aren't they arrested on sight?
3. If your missions statement states "The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." How is that reconciled with the treating the movement of arbitrary amounts of cash within the US as suspicious?
4. When will you publish a cost benefit analysis of the Millimeter wave scanners?
5. When will you publish an independent 3rd party study showing the threat from a liquid explosive is indeed credible and not just a movie plot.
Negativity gets you no where! If you've got nothing positive to try to help the cause then take your complaints somewhere else. Everyone has a job to do so why do you insist on thinking every TSO is out to get you. Sure some have had there bad experiences but that comes with life. I pray that God gives you peace so that someday you might have the strength to enjoy life.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Again we find that RB resorts to telling lies. TSA has never required anyone to declare their cash to TSA or TSO's. By twisting words, you do nothing more than lie.
You know very well from this blog that TSO checks to see if large amounts of cash was declared to the proper agency.
But even though you have been told this many time, I doubt it will stop you from lying and claiming that TSA says large amounts of cash must be declared to TSA.
*************
The only time we need to declare cash is to customs when we leave the United States, so please explain why the TSA has declared sums over $10,000 contraband even when traveling inside the United States. Especially when it is not against any law to travel with any amount of cash inside the United States."
------------------
Actually, I was only commenting on RBs claim that people have to declare their cash to TSA when traveling. My purpose in calling out RB on that lie was not to detail exactly when and where TSA ask if such money is declared when it is found, but to point out that RB is less than honest.
No one has to declare their money to TSA, ever. Period.
But TSA is tasked by DHS in confirming if such money is declared under certain circumstances. And you already know under what circumstances.
Chris Boyce said...
"Bob arrogantly posted..."
As oppossed to the arrogant Chris Boyce, who is never arrogant...
Anonymous said...
" When will you publish a cost benefit analysis of the Millimeter wave scanners?"
How can that be measured?
So many passengers have asked me if our airport has one because they want to use it. To them such a machine is great, to others it might be a waste of money.
How do you calculate people's attitudes in a CBA?
Anonymous said...
Negativity gets you no where! If you've got nothing positive to try to help the cause then take your complaints somewhere else. Everyone has a job to do so why do you insist on thinking every TSO is out to get you. Sure some have had there bad experiences but that comes with life. I pray that God gives you peace so that someday you might have the strength to enjoy life.
July 25, 2009 12:30 PM
.....................
Borrowing some of TSO Ron's words....
Please take a moment to tell me which 0.01% of the TSO's I should be looking for and I will trust only them. A name and description would be more than helpful, after a while TSO's begin to look all the same.
(1) If the TSA has evidence sufficent to show that someone poses a threat to aviation sufficient to justify preventing them from traveling by air, why don't you ask a court to issue an injunction prohibiting them from flying?
(2) Why doesn't the TSA make public what rules it believes travelers are required to comply with, and what sanctions it claims the authority to impose for violations of those rules. (Not the TSA "security procedures", but rules like, "You have to present evidence of your identity meeting such-and-such a standard; if you are unable or unwilling to do so, we will prevent you from passing the checkopoint." Or, "You have to answer the following list of questions. If you decline to answer, you will be subjected to a more intrusive search of the following sort", or "... will prevent you from proceeding past the checkpoint", or ..."we will detain you and prevent you from leaving the checkpoint."
(3) What is the proper procedure for someone to follow who wishes to assert their 5th Amendment right to remain silent at a TSA checkpoint? What, if any, sanctions does the TSA claim the authority to impose for declining to answer questions at a TSA checkpoint?
(4) What is the proper procedure to follow for womeone who wishes to assert their 4th Amendment right not to consent to any search, but who is willing to cooperate with *required* screening and allow an administrative search limited to that which the TSA has authority to perform without consent?
(5) How can travelers distinguish between *requests* (which can be disregarded or refused without penalty) and *orders* (which must be complied with) from TSA employees or contractors?
Anonymous said...
Bob, didn't the TSA do this same thread last year. If I recall correctly the top five were cherry picked and we got a lot of non-answers?
It was a top 10 and the 10 the TSA picked were consistent with questions being asked.
As to the non-answers given, you will have to judge that for yourself.
Anonymous said...
Negativity gets you no where! If you've got nothing positive to try to help the cause then take your complaints somewhere else. Everyone has a job to do so why do you insist on thinking every TSO is out to get you. Sure some have had there bad experiences but that comes with life. I pray that God gives you peace so that someday you might have the strength to enjoy life.
I pray that God gives you the wisdom to know when you should not roll over.
I also pray he gives you eyes to read all the suggestion that have been made with hopes of improving the TSA and security.
I also pray that you learn not to offer prayer as an insult. (see your example and my two examples above)
Just gotta love all the pro/con Chris B. personal attacks. Guess the blog rules don't apply when you are attacking a very effective critic.
And you expect us to trust you....
If you don't like the fact that TSA has been tasked with this responsibility, that is ok. Make that your argument. But its beneath you to lie and change the facts to attempt to win your argument.
July 24, 2009 7:30 PM
...................
Anon, please provide proof that TSA has been tasked with verifying of currency has been declared.
I have read the appliable laws that control currency and I don't see anything in them that calls on TSA to do anything is this area.
I asked: " When will you publish a cost benefit analysis of the Millimeter wave scanners?"
To which a fellow AC (TSO?) responded:
How can that be measured?
So many passengers have asked me if our airport has one because they want to use it. To them such a machine is great, to others it might be a waste of money.
How do you calculate people's attitudes in a CBA?
Attitudes are totally unimportant. Do the millimeter wave scanners improve security relative to their enormous cost compared to the magnetometers? If not why are the tax payers wasting money on purchasing them.
On the other hand if you want to just consider passanger attitudes, I bet liquids would be allowed back on board tomorrow....
How do you legally justify your "on the spot" fines with regards to the Administrative Procedures Act?
How do you legally justify in regards to the Administrative Procedures Act the doubling of any fine when the person fined asks how to protest the fine, an act clearly banned by said act?
My Questions:
#1) Please describe ONE policy or procedure implemented by the TSA, & the TSA alone that, had it been in place on 9/10/01, would have prevented the hijackings on 9/11/01.
Remember, keeping flight deck doors locked & no longer cooperating w/hijackers was done by the airlines & banning of box cutters, which was purely symbolic given that scissors w/blades much bigger are still allowed, pre-dates the inception of the TSA so all of these are off limits for purposes of answering the question.
(thanx txrus)
#2) When will you publish an independent 3rd party study (or ANY real proof for that matter) showing the threat from a liquid explosive is indeed credible and not just a movie plot. thanx anon
#3) When will you stop using the excuse "BUT we are an agency that was put together very hastily after 9/11 and while we have problems we do ok" (and all the variations of it)
#4 When will you realize that your NOT above the law, and NO legal statute gives you permission to shred the constitution, and that you ARE accountable to the american people who employ you and pay your salary via tax dollars and bring real accountability and transparency to TSA?
#5 When will you realize that Richard Reid FAILED and move on?
Since your spending billions of dollars of things you don't even use (see "puffer" machines et al.) Why don't you get some scientists to develop a way to check my shows while there on my feet and scan liquids?
...and I realize this is impossible for you to answer, and that you only asked for 5 and this is 6 but here it is...
#6) When will the American people finally wake up and demand that there representatives in the Congress dismantle the TSA?
Why do I keep getting patted down for wearing wide-leg pants? If I was wearing a skirt, I'm pretty sure no one would try it. Is this really a TSA policy? Either pat everyone down, or only those that set off the metal detector. Selectively picking on people with baggy pants seems like a misguided attempt at profiling.
"...TSA is tasked by DHS in confirming if such money is declared under certain circumstances...."
And how exactly is that done? As far as I know they simply ask a question.
The answer to the question can be "yes" or "not yet, but I will before I leave"
The TSA has no way of confirming if the declaration has or will be made.
So what is the point?
Anon sez - "West,
Thanks very much for responding to my question. However, I'm still a bit confused. If the privacy law prohibits you from disclosing the specific disciplinary action taken against a given employee, how does it permit you to say that "appropriate action was taken." Wouldn't the very fact that "action was taken" violate the privacy laws? Or is it the case that you (i.e. TSA, blog staff, Bob, etc.) are claiming that "appropriate action was taken" without any actual knowledge that sanctions were applied? If so, is it your contention that (even without direct knowledge of the details), TSA always responds appropriately to such situations?"
I have no personal knowledge of what particular discipline was taken, as I am not in the individuals chain of supervisory members. I actually do not wish to know what actions are taken specifically, and a statement that "appropriate actions was taken" or something to that effect is allowable because it does not identify any action, or the person themselves. It is a blanket statement that actions were taken to correct an inappropriate action by an Officer. It is the same type of statement that should be used in ANY situation (whether government or private industry) when charges are not filed.
West
TSA Blog Team
July 23, 2009 4:09 AM
------------------------
I quoted my original question and West's response because the topic has been shifted off of the front page.
So my question is: Does TSA really believe that it is acceptable for an official spokesman to say "Appropriate action has been taken" when that person is actually completely ignorant of what, if any, action has been taken? Does the TSA (and its representatives really) really take the position that any action taken (or not taken) is by definition "appropriate?"
"Official Action Has Been Taken" seem to mean that you are not privy to the information due to the Privacy Act. We can't go to anyones place of business and demand to know why you were fired or what action was taken against you..why should you expect to be able to get that from the TSA?
...and I realize this is impossible for you to answer, and that you only asked for 5 and this is 6 but here it is...
#6) When will the American people finally wake up and demand that there representatives in the Congress dismantle the TSA?
July 27, 2009 12:53 AM
OK. Lets jump back almost 8 years right after 9/11/09. Back during the time where American's weren't flying. Gee, I wonder why that was??? TSA single handedly saved the Aviation industry and will NEVER be disbanded. But keep fighting that battle. You gotta do something with all that free time.
Hey Bob how ya doin?
Aargh Just missed the deadline. Duh!
Anyway, if it is not too late:
1. Why is it so easy to obtain access to a runway on airports without the proper ID - piggybacking works well in every airport.
2. Why doesn't the TSA do spot-checks on passengers after they have been screened?
3. Why aren't airport and airline employees fully screened?
4. Why are you not allowed to carry scissors but there are full sets of silverware in the Business class?
5. Why can you bring matches on the plane?
Anonymous said...
Why do I keep getting patted down for wearing wide-leg pants? If I was wearing a skirt, I'm pretty sure no one would try it. Is this really a TSA policy? Either pat everyone down, or only those that set off the metal detector. Selectively picking on people with baggy pants seems like a misguided attempt at profiling.
July 27, 2009 10:22 AM
First off I speak for everyone when i say that nobody wants to see what color your underwear is. Secondly, and most importantly, wearing baggy pants is an easy way to conceal (keyword:) Non-Metalic prohibited items. You could strap 40lbs of C-4 to your legs and no one would know. Besides, girls dont like baggy pants anymore....
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Why do I keep getting patted down for wearing wide-leg pants? If I was wearing a skirt, I'm pretty sure no one would try it. Is this really a TSA policy? Either pat everyone down, or only those that set off the metal detector. Selectively picking on people with baggy pants seems like a misguided attempt at profiling.
July 27, 2009 10:22 AM"
------------------------
Where to start? 1st, Uh, the reaaon you get patted down is that loose clothing can hide objects. As to why someone in a skirt does not get patted down? Couldn't tell ya. Dumb policy on our part. It's just as easy to hide something under a skirt as under baggy pants. (Ever see the video where the woman in the convenience store sticks an entire frozen turkey under there?"
As far as "profiling"?!? I think you need to reread the definition of profiling.
Does TSA still get its knickers all bunched up if someone has $4,700?
Anonymous writes:
"Official Action Has Been Taken" seem to mean that you are not privy to the information due to the Privacy Act. We can't go to anyones place of business and demand to know why you were fired or what action was taken against you..why should you expect to be able to get that from the TSA?
Actually, it depends upon the business. Employees who work for public employers are required to release certain information that might otherwise be considered private ... the chief example being salaries. I can't go up to the CEO of Starbucks and find out his salary ... but I can find out the salary of the president of my state university -- or anyone else who works for the university, for that matter. Now, that doesn't mean that I can examine everyone's personnel files there, either. There's a line between information that the public has the right to know, and that the public doesn't. I assume that the Privacy Act delineates that line.
Now, should disciplinary matters in areas such as this be public or private? Interesting arguments can be made on both sides. Clearly there is a compelling public interest in knowing that those who are entrusted with protecting the nation's transportation systems are performing their jobs correctly. Does that entitle access to specific, individual disciplinary records? Should it?
Anon Said: "Official Action Has Been Taken" seem to mean that you are not privy to the information due to the Privacy Act. We can't go to anyones place of business and demand to know why you were fired or what action was taken against you..why should you expect to be able to get that from the TSA?
---
HUGE, HUGE difference here, TSA is NOT a private business. They are Government Employee's. You can't demand to see a private companies budget, private companies don't have to comply with FOIA act.
---
Anon Said:OK. Lets jump back almost 8 years right after 9/11/09. Back during the time where American's weren't flying. Gee, I wonder why that was??? TSA single handedly saved the Aviation industry and will NEVER be disbanded. But keep fighting that battle. You gotta do something with all that free time.
TSA was a knee jerk reaction by scared "Americans" larger institutions have been dismantled, and I can hope that this one will be aswell
9/11/09.
make that 9/11/01. thanks bob for not editing for me. :P
1. When will I be able to fly again, without having the worry of detainment or harassment from no wrongdoing?
...that's all, really.
"Official Action Has Been Taken" seem to mean that you are not privy to the information due to the Privacy Act. We can't go to anyones place of business and demand to know why you were fired or what action was taken against you..why should you expect to be able to get that from the TSA?"
==================
If, as the TSA and their lawyers have claimed, privacy laws actually prohibit TSA from releasing this information I have no expectation that they will tell me what action was taken. However, I would hope (but hardly expect) that TSA representatives would refrain from claiming that appropriate action has been taken when they clearly don't know what, if any, action has been taken. A lie-- and if claiming knowledge of the details of a situation when you aren't actually privy to the facts isn't a lie, it's something pretty darned close-- is still a lie even if it is expressed in boilerplate corporate/government language.
It seems clear to me that none of the TSA blog staff has a clue as to what happened to the petty thug heard on the St. Louis tape. I'm just wondering why, in light of their apparent ignorance, they think it's acceptable to claim that appropriate action has been taken. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the TSA clings to the almost Orwellian belief that every action the agency takes is de facto "appropriate."
First off I speak for everyone when i say that nobody wants to see what color your underwear is.
.......................
Don't be so sure that you speak for everyone!
How do you justify confiscating toys, particularly when they are clearly toys and not a threat, as you did in FLL?
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Plunders-Boys-Disney-Toys.html
Mike
Blogger Bob - Your post advises:
Your responses will be reviewed and the most common questions will help us generate signage and other materials that address the concerns that flying public has.
My questions are:
, besides producing signage will you report on this blog the results of this survey?
. if yes, when will you report the results?
Thanks,
Frank
BOS
Here's a really simple one that is not 'snarky' and doesn't 'poke fun' at TSA policies that make 'no sense':
Why, just why, in the name of all that is reasonably engineered, did the TSA choose to go with those metal detectors that are so poorly designed that they trigger if a passenger brushes up against them?
Here's a shout out to the poor TSO in LAX Term 3 who was understanding when I mentioned that I had brushed up against the metal detector when it went off. He didn't even snarl, just said 'Try it again.' with a grin on his face. Do you think we could get him to retrain the TSO's at SEA?
"TSA single handedly saved the Aviation industry"
LOL
txrus said...
I've got just one for you, so maybe by being frugal, it will get answered!
Please describe ONE policy or procedure implemented by the TSA, & the TSA alone that, had it been in place on 9/10/01, would have prevented the hijackings on 9/11/01.
Hmmmm lets see can the airlines who are allready in finacial trouble aford the technology and training that TSA has provided? NOT! TSA created the FAM's (Federal Air Marshells) program, FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officers) program! There are alot of programs out there that TSA has created and funded that would have prevented 9/11 from happening. So the next time you speak do some research! TSA is alot more than just TSO's at the checkpoint!
Anon sez - "A lie-- and if claiming knowledge of the details of a situation when you aren't actually privy to the facts isn't a lie, it's something pretty darned close-- is still a lie even if it is expressed in boilerplate corporate/government language.
It seems clear to me that none of the TSA blog staff has a clue as to what happened to the petty thug heard on the St. Louis tape. I'm just wondering why, in light of their apparent ignorance, they think it's acceptable to claim that appropriate action has been taken. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the TSA clings to the almost Orwellian belief that every action the agency takes is de facto "appropriate."
Quoting the official public release by my parent organization is not a lie, it is in effect restating the release. When the parent organization releases publicly that they have taken appropriate action in a situation that
a) I have no direct contact with
b) I am not in the individuals chain of supervisory staff
c) the individual was not charged formally with anything (like stealing or battery, etc)
Then I have no right to know the specifics, and according to the Privacy Act, neither do you UNLESS the individual consents to give the information out. That is not a lie, merely stating the facts of the situation.
West
TSA Blog Team
Part 1
All of your questions have been submitted for review. Thanks for taking the time to give us some feedback. Remember, as I stated in my blog post, this is not a blog project. I simply provided the blog as a megaphone to get the message out to the public that TSA was seeking feedback. At this point, I’m not sure when the answers will be given, but when they are, I’ll provide a blog post with the answers and the signage that was created.
In the meantime, I can answer a few of these really quick:
Q: Why does TSA continue to announce in its signage that liquids are limited to 3 ounces, when the real limit is 100ml?
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: Why doesn't TSA hold people publicly accountable for illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior? To this day, the public's only assurance of justice is TSA's "trust us, we did something about it" statements. You don't seem to have any problem publicizing the good news, though. No wonder no one trusts the TSA
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: What is your formal stance on the carrying of cash through checkpoints that does not exceed legal amounts?
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: Where are all the specific rules that TSA requires a traveler to comply with printed and available for review?
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: Why has TSA been less than truthful about the quality of the images that the MMW WBI produces?
A: Less than truthful? I don’t know how much more truthful we could get. Would you like us to doctor an image that is far more graphic than the ones we’ve been showing you? Because that’s what we’d have to do. Doctor them… The images we are showing you (and major news outlets) are legitimate. Please see this blog post.
Q: When will you stop using the excuse "BUT we are an agency that was put together very hastily after 9/11 and while we have problems we do ok" (and all the variations of it)
A: Can you cite an example of an agency that stood up over 45,000 people as fast as we did nationwide with no glitches? I’ve been with the TSA since the beginning, and if you seriously cannot see the improvement, you’re simply looking at the failures and ignoring the successes.
Continued ---->
Part 2
Q: When will you realize that Richard Reid FAILED and move on? Since you’re spending billions of dollars of things you don't even use (see "puffer" machines et al.) Why don't you get some scientists to develop a way to check my shows while there on my feet and scan liquids?
A: Sure Richard Reid failed. Does that mean we should just ignore shoes? After Richard failed, reports of this new vulnerability were spread near and far by the media and blogosphere. TSA acted the best it could with the technology it had available. Since then, much time has been spent by scientists, etc who are looking for alternate screening measures for shoes and liquids. Please see this blog post to read about the path forward on liquids.
Please see this blog post to read about the path forward on shoes. TSA is looking for alternative procedures.
Q: When will the American people finally wake up and demand that there representatives in the Congress dismantle the TSA?
A: The American people who don’t agree with you are wondering when you will wake up and realize that TSA should never be dismantled.
Q: Why do I keep getting patted down for wearing wide-leg pants? If I was wearing a skirt, I'm pretty sure no one would try it. Is this really a TSA policy?
A: Our officers have the discretion of whether or not they should pat you down due to loose fitting clothing, or abnormal bulges in the clothing. Wide-leg pants would definitely fit the description of loose clothing. If an officer thought that a skirt was loose fitting or had abnormal bulges, I’m sure they would pat the individual down. We screen thousands of people a day, so just because you haven’t seen it, does not mean that it hasn’t happened.
Q: Why doesn't the TSA do spot-checks on passengers after they have been screened?
A: We do. Please see this blog post to read about gate screening.
Q: Why are you not allowed to carry scissors but there are full sets of silverware in the Business class?
A: You are allowed to bring scissors that measure no more than 4” from the fulcrum.
Q: Why can you bring matches on the plane?
A: Because the FAA allows passengers to travel with one book of matches.
Q: When will I be able to fly again, without having the worry of detainment or harassment from no wrongdoing?
A: Today? Have you been detained by the TSA before?
Q: How do you justify confiscating toys, particularly when they are clearly toys and not a threat, as you did in FLL?
A: I’m still learning about this, but I know that the officers involved used their discretion. It’s hard for me to comment on their decision when I wasn’t there to see it happen.
Thanks!
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Part 3
Q:What TSA offices or oversight committees exist to protect passengers' civil rights and privacy, and can you give examples of where review by those offices or committees have resulted in a change in a plan before it was implemented?
A:TSA offices with specific oversight include the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties, and the Office of Privacy Policy & Compliance, but TSA makes great efforts to embed concern for civil rights and privacy throughout the workforce. With a large workforce geographically dispersed, and with tremendous passenger volume, TSA must rely on its entire workforce to protect passenger civil rights and privacy. Going into the details of the development of a program can lead to a chilling effect on candid policy development, so we’ll decline to provide specific examples, but certainly there are security programs affecting passengers that have carefully considered civil rights and privacy. TSA has published a large number of Privacy Impact Assessments on various programs in which significant steps to provide for privacy were adopted. For example, the recent focus on imaging technology highlighted the comprehensive privacy work summarized in the Whole Body Imaging PIA.
Q: Where are the brochures that TSA has to give to passengers prior to entering the backscatter or millimeter wave portals?
A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
July 30, 2009 4:05 PM
............................
Who will be held accountable for not complying with the old PIA for MMW?
Bob wrote:
"A: You are allowed to bring scissors that measure no more than 4” from the fulcrum."
So why in another thread did an passenger state scissors were not allowed?
"I made a trip from Dallas to Lexington and my scissors were OK with the TSO when I left. When I was on the return leg the TSO at Lexington didn't like my scissors."
Bob at TSA wrote:
"Sure Richard Reid failed. Does that mean we should just ignore shoes? After Richard failed, reports of this new vulnerability were spread near and far by the media and blogosphere."
That vulnerability was not new. It has existed since people began wearing shoes on airplanes. If you disagree, please say so.
On June 20, 2009, your associate and blog partner West wrote:
"I am certain that the organization had considered shoes as a threat [before the Richard Reid incident], but not something that was a serious consideration like several other types of methods that are possible but not widely known as a source of threat. The increased attention brought by a high profile event brought the consideration back to the front burner and demanded some sort of an adjustment to screening, simply because it made the method more widely known."
Bob, if tomorrow TSA caught someone smugglng an amount of explosive equal to that which fits in the sole of a shoe by hiding it in his mouth, under his arm, in the small of his back, in his crotch, or in his rectum, would that be considered a new vulnerability? Is it a new vulnerability now that I've brought the possibility to TSA's attention by mentioning it to you?
Sure, no one has succeeded at smuggling explosives onto a plane in such a manner. Does that mean you should just ignore mouths, underarms, crotches, and rectums? If not, then why are you ignoring them?
Un-X-rayed shoes are no more a threat to aviation than a number of other things that receive no special attention from TSA are. I and many other people believe that your shoe carnival is all for show, and you at TSA have yet to make a convincing argument to the contrary -- you haven't even maintained a consistent argument.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonymous said...
First off I speak for everyone when i say that nobody wants to see what color your underwear is.
.......................
Don't be so sure that you speak for everyone!
July 29, 2009 11:52 AM
Im sorry. I speak for sensible people. You dont belong in that category underwear voyeur!
Phil said...
""I am certain that the organization had considered shoes as a threat [before the Richard Reid incident], but not something that was a serious consideration like several other types of methods that are possible but not widely known as a source of threat. The increased attention brought by a high profile event brought the consideration back to the front burner and demanded some sort of an adjustment to screening, simply because it made the method more widely known."
Bob, if tomorrow TSA caught someone smugglng an amount of explosive equal to that which fits in the sole of a shoe by hiding it in his mouth, under his arm, in the small of his back, in his crotch, or in his rectum, would that be considered a new vulnerability? Is it a new vulnerability now that I've brought the possibility to TSA's attention by mentioning it to you?
Sure, no one has succeeded at smuggling explosives onto a plane in such a manner. Does that mean you should just ignore mouths, underarms, crotches, and rectums? If not, then why are you ignoring them?"
-------------------
Phil, once again a dollar short and a day late!! Why do you think we are ignoring those areas??
We actually do pay attention to them. Yes, when at the walk-through-metal-detector, it is the job of a TSO to observe all of the passenger. Are the holding their arms to their side to hide something in one of their pits. Does their bulky clothing hide something - is there a unusually bulge in someones croth area or backside area?
You watch people as they divest their property. No, we are not BDO's, and not trying to be. Do you have any idea how many people try to "smuggle" things once the get to the table in from of the walk-through, as if we can't seem them from there?
No, we do not ask people to open their mouth to show us the "food" in there. But if I seem them holding an apple before the walk through, I can pretty much assume its apple in their mouth they are chewing and not C-4.
However, no cavity check, though. Don't want to take it too far. And yes, its possible to get something through there. TSA has already caught people attempting to smuggle things in their backside.
But as has always been said, checkpoints are not designed to be perfect. If we wanted to do that we would have to perform stip-searches and full bag dumps on everyone, which will not happen.
This was just to let you know, we have already though of what you said. But thanks for the help, Phil. Your expertise in security matters is an untouched fountain of knowledge.
Bob,
I asked:
Why does TSA continue to announce in its signage that liquids are limited to 3 ounces, when the real limit is 100ml?
You referred me to another blog post, but it doesn't answer the question.
I understand why the limit used to be 3 ounces, and now is 100ml. What I am asking is this: why do TSA signs and brochures, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, still refer to the old limit? Surely TSA has had the time to update its graphic message by now ...
"Sure Richard Reid failed. Does that mean we should just ignore shoes"
No one is saying shoes should be ignored. It would be sufficient to roll back the shoe policy to what it was before TSA went completely out of control in August 2006.
And, of course, Bob, as you well know, most other nations do not have a mandatory shoe carnival, as TSA has imposed, and none of those nations have seen planes harmed by an epidemic of shoe bombs. This conclusively proves that TSA's shoe carnival is a hysterical overreaction to a nonexistent threat.
Why did you pretend I never posted my question about the Administrative Procedures Act?
Do you imagine that if you pretend I never posted it that I will pretend I never posted it?
Did you forget that I posted it last year when you did this?
Did you deliberately forget that I posted this last year when you did this?
Did you forget that you didn't answer it last year either?
Do you imagine that if you ignore it long enough the question will go away?
Why did you confiscate my jar of Tostitos cheese dip this morning? It is not a 'liquid'. It is a quite dense creamy mixture with chunks of salsa in it. If it is a 'liquid' then I obviously couldn't scoop it up with a Frito, could I?
Also, why did you tell me I could go back and put it in my checked luggage, when I am plainly wearing an employee ID, have no other bags, and no ticket to board a plane. It is bad enough I can't take in my morning coffee every day but now you just took away my lunch.
"why do TSA signs and brochures, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, still refer to the old limit?"
Because TSA's SOP is to lie to passengers. They lie when they say shoes are dangerous, they lie when they say liquids are dangerous, they lie about their strip-search machines, they lie about the necessity for ID checks, so why would you expect them not to lie on their signs?
Quoted:
" Adam said...
Why did you confiscate my jar of Tostitos cheese dip this morning? It is not a 'liquid'. It is a quite dense creamy mixture with chunks of salsa in it. If it is a 'liquid' then I obviously couldn't scoop it up with a Frito, could I?
Also, why did you tell me I could go back and put it in my checked luggage, when I am plainly wearing an employee ID, have no other bags, and no ticket to board a plane. It is bad enough I can't take in my morning coffee every day but now you just took away my lunch.
July 31, 2009 9:31 AM"
---------------------------
Let me ask you something, can you pour it out of the jar? Will it hold it's own shape if removed from the jar? Is it denser than peanut butter? Is it thicker than toothpaste?
Uh, also, if it was a solid, you couldn't sccop it up with a chip either, could you?
Sorry.... It's considered a liquid. It's prohibited.
Thanks for the clarification on the cheese dip being a 'liquid'. I still think it isn't fair that an airport employee who doesn't go anywhere near a plane has to scrutinize his own lunch box every morning to figure out what is "allowed".
Next question. Your website, (and correlating signs posted in the security line) lists these prohibited items: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
Note that Marijuana is not listed as a prohibited item. However in one of your previous posts you link to this story
"7:15 a.m. - In Massachusetts, a TSA behavior detection officer observed a passenger exhibiting suspicious behavior and sent him for additional screening. The security officer who conducted the screening found a bag of marijuana hidden in the passenger's groin area. The passenger was arrested."
(http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/another_tsa_fri_am.shtm)
My question is, what gives TSA the jurisdiction to conduct drug enforcement? In this situation, does TSA have the right to physically detain him? TSA can certainly call the local police and notify them where the suspect is going, but I don't think they should be able to detain him if he hasn't violated any rules 'within TSA jurisdiction'
Bob wrote:
"A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web."
Interesting, Bob, because today on FT we learned that the signage at BWI is at the beginning of the ID check line. That's not good enough.
Hey Adam, do you really think the TSO who conducted the screening felt a item in the groin area and asked "hey is this your dope?" No he felt an item that didn't belong, called his supervisor who called a LEO who did a more intense investigation and the passenger was arrested for having dope. The TSO did his job and the LEO did his. How was the TSO supposed to know what the passenger had other than he/she was hiding something?
Adam,
Just like anyone else who is subject to screening, the person in the story you refer to was selected for additional screening based on his behavior, not what he was or was not carrying on his person or his bags. Subsequently, the marijuana was found on his person during the search that is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the TSA officers at the checkpoint.
Once discovered a supervisor is called and the LEO is notified immediately. TSA is enforcing all Federal Regulations as they pertain to travel. The Code of Federal Regulations states that any person who wants to have access to the sterile area (where the plane is) must submit to screening by TSA personnel.The only way to get to the plane is by being screened. This individual was screened, possible contraband was found, local law enforcement was notified and took control of the individual and the illegal substance and the individual was either arrested.
It is illegal to transport contraband. 18 USC Part 1, Chapter 114, subsection 2342 states that as an unlawful act.
While it is not the primary mission of TSA, TSA employees are required to adhere to Federal laws under 49 CFR and 18 USC, and all state and local laws and make proper notification when a violation of any of these laws is suspected.
So.....To answer your question, he was in process of being screened when the illegal substance was found. Individuals are required to complete the screening process before you proceed to leave the screening area.
If you leave the screening area prior to the completion of screening process then it is a breach of security and everything is stopped and law enforcement is summoned to place you in custody under suspicion of circumvention of security. These are the rules based on the regulations that are the laws that TSA follows.
Again once the substance was found, he was detained by the LEO, and arrested by the LEO..Not TSA
Finally, with all that information, I hope to help you understand that everything that was done in that situation was within the jurisdiction of TSA. TSA along with the local LEO enforced the regulation that was violated when the substance was found.
TSA works with many local, state and other federal agencies each and every day at each and every checkpoint across the country. There is no way that TSA could do this without all the help, they alone, do not have enough authority. Together with their law enforcement partners in the other agencies, all aspects of all rules, laws, regulations, and codes can be enforced, cited, and applied on a daily basis.
Seems to me every year we go on vacation, one or both of our pieces of checked luggage gets opened and inspected by the TSA. This year was like every other, only problem is that they did not repack the luggage as I had it and something broke. How do you avoid getting checked every year???
Why does the TSA go through my checked baggage every year? What am I doing wrong? This year they did not repack a bag the way I had it and broke something. At least the last 3 years they have checked one or both of our checked baggage...
Adam,
If I am reading the situation correctly as you have it within the quotes, it looks like the TSO was the one who physically found the marijuana on the person. I am assuming that the TSO asked the person if they had anything there, and the person either admitted it at that point or eventually admitted to it after the TSO repeated the question.
The TSA is obviously not the DEA or the FBI. However, as a federal law enforcement agency (which they are) and an agency under a department of the executive branch, they must abide by the law and report illegal items discovered. Do you really think that a federal employee at a security checkpoint performing inspection and compliance work is just going to let an illegal substance pass through their checkpoint with their knowledge and under their supervision? I do understand the complexity of this issue in relation to the law and civil liberties, but it is a very thin line.
I believe that a federal employee working at a security checkpoint would be acting correctly if he or she came across something that appears to be a widely-known illegal substance and involved the appropriate authorities in the matter. In the case at my airport, the local law enforcement are only 25-30 feet away (at the most), and they would probably get involved before I had the chance to get their attention. In most cases, I would imagine that law enforcement may not be far away and may voluntarily inquire with the TSO as to what is going on. Either way, we have the legal system for a reason. It can (and should) be challenged if the person feels their rights were violated. That is for the courts to decide.
ICE, Customs and many other agencies partner with TSA in various situations and missions, and do get involved with TSA incidents at airports all the time, and will continue to do so. It is inter-agency cooperation, which is both acceptable and standard. Again, obviously, the TSOs are not federal law enforcement officers, but as federal employees performing inspection and compliance at a federal checkpoint, they will normally act when coming across something that appears to be a known illegal substance. Whether you agree or not is an entirely different issue, as it is one for the courts. I am just giving an explanation for why they do it.
And I realize you're probably still heated about having your dip taken away, but every kind of creamy substance, even as thick as (and thicker than) peanut butter is prohibited, so the dip definitely fits within that category.
Ranger11/ said...
Adam,
Just like anyone else who is subject to screening, the person in the story you refer to was selected for additional screening based on his behavior, not what he was or was not carrying on his person or his bags. Subsequently, the marijuana was found on his person during the search that is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the TSA officers at the checkpoint.
Once discovered a supervisor is called and the LEO is notified immediately. TSA is enforcing all Federal Regulations as they pertain to travel. The Code of Federal Regulations states that any person who wants to have access to the sterile area (where the plane is) must submit to screening by TSA personnel.The only way to get to the plane is by being screened. This individual was screened, possible contraband was found, local law enforcement was notified and took control of the individual and the illegal substance and the individual was either arrested.
..........................
The inspection your refer to is for Weapons, Explosives and Incendiaries only.
Please post the text of the CFR that says differenly.
In trying to be helpful, Anonymous said on July 30, 2009 9:47 AM:
Hmmmm lets see can the airlines who are allready in finacial trouble aford the technology and training that TSA has provided? NOT! TSA created the FAM's (Federal Air Marshells) program, FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officers) program! There are alot of programs out there that TSA has created and funded that would have prevented 9/11 from happening. So the next time you speak do some research! TSA is alot more than just TSO's at the checkpoint!
*****************************
1. The Fed'l Air Marshal program existed long before anyone even thought of the TSA, so that one's out.
2. Had there been FFDO's on any of the planes in question the day of the hijacking, for them to utilize their weapons would have required opening the doors to the flight deck, which, BTW, is exactly what they did do anyway because it was airline SOP at the time, therefore giving said hijackers access to said flight deck & ultimately control over said planes. Once the door is open, all bets are off as to who will ultimately end up w/control of the airplane(s). Therefore, it would seem the best way to prevent a repeat of the hijackings in question is to prevent access to the flight deck. Which means keeping the flight deck door locked AT ALL TIMES. Which is what, as stated originally, the airlines have done. Pilots opening the doors to the flight deck, for ANY reason, only increases the risk of the plane being taken over, not reduces it.
3. As far as the claim about the airlines assuming control & cost of airport security checkpoints, given how porous they currently are, while under the control of the TSA, as far too many reports to cite will support, even if such a situation were to happen, they couldn't possibly do worse than the TSA has done.
I continue to await an answer to the original question.
To Anonymous,
(who posted on 8/4 @ 8:01am)
You must have missed Ranger11's main point in what he said. You are asking for proof of a section within the CFR that, in this case, would be unnecessary in order for TSA to argue that it acted within its legal means. It is the combination of two sections within two separate codes (CFR and USC)that gives the TSA the legal authority to act as they did, and continue to do, with suspicion of possible illegal substances.
TSA has the authority to conduct searches for weapons, explosives and incendiaries, as you stated. As I stated in a previous post, TSA, as both a federal law enforcement agency and an agency falling under a Cabinet-level department, has the duty and authority to act on anything it may believe to be in violation of existing laws; in the case of TSOs, their duty to "act" is to make available law enforcement aware of the matter. Put simply, TSA searching for weapons, incendiaries and explosives + discovery of a possible illegal substance while conducting the aforementioned searches for weapons, incendiaries and explosives = legal means.
As Ranger11 said:
"While it is not the primary mission of TSA, TSA employees are required to adhere to Federal laws under 49 CFR and 18 USC, and all state and local laws and make proper notification when a violation of any of these laws is suspected."
That paragraph is the driving point of this situation, as TSA's authority to notify law enforcement of a possible illegal substance stems from the fact that such substances are being discovered while conducting searches for items prohibited through the checkpoint. Please read my post concerning this issue, as I explain the logic behind it in that post.
There have been instances where an individual has been arrested due to possession of an illegal substance or substances, with TSA initially discovering the item(s) and summoning local, state or other law enforcement officers.
https://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/man_intent_conceal_drug_revealed.shtm
TSA has the legal right to act on a suspicion of a possible illegal item, substance or other object under 49 CFR and 18 USC, while in the process of conducting security screening and inspections. Please note that I did not say "at a checkpoint", because it is NOT limited to searches done at the checkpoints. An example would be when TSAs VIPR teams conduct searches in transportation terminals, which includes the property within and surrounding the terminals. The right of these VIPR teams to act is even greater, as VIPR teams are made up (at least partly) of law enforcement officers.
Quoted:
" Sandra said...
Bob wrote:
"A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web."
Interesting, Bob, because today on FT we learned that the signage at BWI is at the beginning of the ID check line. That's not good enough.
July 31, 2009 3:16 PM
---------------------------
"today on FT we learned that the signage at BWI is at the beginning of the ID check line."
Uh, didn't you answer your own question? If the signs are at the beginning of the ID check line, aren't they still prior to, thus, in front of, the machines?
Why does TSA allow transgender "Pre-op" (male) TSOs to pat down female passengers?
This happened to me today at a NY airport and I am very upset. Even the supervisors said "she" was a male.
TSA is treating passengers with medical implants like criminals. Even when they identify the area of the implant, they insist on a full pat down. There is NO rational reason for doing this other than "they can". This appears to be a case of official abuse!
Sandra said...
"Bob wrote:
"A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web."
Interesting, Bob, because today on FT we learned that the signage at BWI is at the beginning of the ID check line. That's not good enough."
_______________________
So where should the signage be located?
Anonymous writes:
TSA is treating passengers with medical implants like criminals. Even when they identify the area of the implant, they insist on a full pat down. There is NO rational reason for doing this other than "they can". This appears to be a case of official abuse!
I'm with TSA on this one. (Gasp!)
The problem is that, when an implant sets off the metal detector, the TSO conducting the screening doesn't know that the implant is the *only* thing setting off the detector. One could imagine someone with evil intent coming through a checkpoint with a metal knee brace and a Bad Item hidden somewhere else, and simply pointing to the knee brace as the metal which tripped the detector. The TSO has to verify that there isn't another reason that the metal detector alerted.
Anonymous said...
Sandra said...
"Bob wrote:
"A: It has been determined that the signage in front of the machines are acceptable as an alternative to brochures. The image and information can be seen on the sign as well as the web."
Interesting, Bob, because today on FT we learned that the signage at BWI is at the beginning of the ID check line. That's not good enough."
_______________________
So where should the signage be located?
August 6, 2009 2:37 PM
..........................
Life size image posted on the outside of the MMW imager.
The signage at BWI is both at the beginning of the ID check line AND before the machine itself. Around at least one of the machines, there are signs both before AND after the entrance/exit.
Try again.
Jim, you're absolutely right about the issue with metal implants. People come through all the time saying they have a metal implant of some kind, but upon my asking they then pull a cell phone, car keys and a pack of cigarettes out of their pockets and can't understand why it has to go through the x-ray machine.
They're probably thinking, "my brace is going to set it off anyway, who cares", completely oblivious to concealment methods others could get away with if we allowed that type of thing to occur.
It was brought to my attention that some of my links were screwy in my above responses. Sorry about that...
Let's try it again:
Q: Why doesn't TSA hold people publicly accountable for illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior? To this day, the public's only assurance of justice is TSA's "trust us, we did something about it" statements. You don't seem to have any problem publicizing the good news, though. No wonder no one trusts the TSA
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: What is your formal stance on the carrying of cash through checkpoints that does not exceed legal amounts?
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: Where are all the specific rules that TSA requires a traveler to comply with printed and available for review?
A: Please see this blog post.
Q: Why has TSA been less than truthful about the quality of the images that the MMW WBI produces?
A: Less than truthful? I don’t know how much more truthful we could get. Would you like us to doctor an image that is far more graphic than the ones we’ve been showing you? Because that’s what we’d have to do. Doctor them… The images we are showing you (and major news outlets) are legitimate. Please see this blog post.
Blogger Bob
TSA BLog Team
Bob, the information to which you linked does not answer the questions. For instance, there really is no answer to "Where are all the specific rules that TSA requires a traveler to comply with printed and available for review?" because TSA have not published all those rules, and in fact claims that this is part of your security strategy.
Also, why have you repeatedly refused to accept the several on-topic, comment-rules-compliant, comments I have submitted in response to this topic? I think the 50% response rate to my "Got Feedback?" is rather significant and would be of interest to your readers.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
So I guess my original question will never be addressed:
Why does TSA allow transgender "Pre-op" (male) TSOs to pat down female passengers?
This happened to me today at a NY airport and I am very upset. Even the supervisors said "she" was a male.
August 6, 2009 11:01 AM
Q: Where are all the specific rules that TSA requires a traveler to comply with printed and available for review?
A: Please see this blog post.
Blogger Bob
TSA BLog Team
August 7, 2009 12:53 PM
Were in the linked information does it say a person must remove an ID from an ID holder?
What law requires me to do anything other than to show my ID.
The rules TSA forces on people are not published, quit being dishonest about that!
Q: Why has TSA been less than truthful about the quality of the images that the MMW WBI produces?
A: Less than truthful? I don’t know how much more truthful we could get. Would you like us to doctor an image that is far more graphic than the ones we’ve been showing you? Because that’s what we’d have to do. Doctor them… The images we are showing you (and major news outlets) are legitimate. Please see this blog post.
Blogger Bob
TSA BLog Team
August 7, 2009 12:53 PM
....................
How do I know when your telling the truth?
When your not saying anything!
Still waiting:
"Anonymous said...
So I guess my original question will never be addressed:
Why does TSA allow transgender "Pre-op" (male) TSOs to pat down female passengers?
This happened to me today at a NY airport and I am very upset. Even the supervisors said "she" was a male.
August 6, 2009 11:01 AM
August 7, 2009 3:07 PM"
Almost a whole week and still no response. Did I hit a nerve?
"Less than truthful? I don’t know how much more truthful we could get."
You could post images that are of the same size and resolution that the operator of the strip-search machine sees. You know, the way we've been asking you to for months.
Just as a follow-up to some comments I have posted before on this blog entry, TSOs at LAX recently found over four kilos of cocaine on 2 passengers who were attempting to smuggle the drugs, which were concealed in their shorts, through the checkpoint and onto a plane.
The TSOs became suspicious of the unusually baggy shorts they were wearing and conducted a pat-down on both individuals. After calling for a supervisor, they discovered large items taped to the inside of their thighs. Local LEOs and DEA Agents responded and arrested the individuals for suspected narcotics trafficking. In the end, the DEA found approximately 4 kilos of cocaine on the men.
This is a great example of how TSOs have both the right and the duty to alert law enforcement based simply on a suspicion.
As a frequent flyer my Top 5 questions are aimed at the flying public and not at TSA.
1. After seven years, how is possible that you do not know to take off your footware?
2. How is possible that you do not know that keys, change, and that beloved cell phone is not made of metal?
3. No liquids over 3.4oz or 100ml allowed. Is this so hard?
4. You know the TSA checks your boarding pass and ID, yet you don't have them ready, WHY NOT!
5. Your laptop and other LARGE electronics have to be in a seperate bin, but you refuse to do so, WHY NOT!
@anonymous: I regret that you were upset by the pat-down you received.
It is TSA’s policy that pat-downs of passengers will be conducted by TSOs who are the same gender as the passenger except in extraordinary circumstances.
Unfortunately, based on your blog comment, we do not have sufficient information to determine if our policy was followed or if extraordinary circumstances were present.
If possible, please contact me directly at tsablog@dhs.gov and provide the following information: airport name, date and time of incident, airline or gate number, circumstances giving rise to the pat-down and details of the exchange you had with the supervisor.
Alternatively, you may provide the information by contacting the TCC by email at ContactCenter@dhs.gov
This additional information will give us the opportunity to inquire into this matter.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Read on Blogger Bob...Is this another TSSA success story? Where were you girls and your VIPR teams in Iraq? Why aren't you on our borders harrassing the illegals?
A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.
Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.
Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.
“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.
“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said.
Weber’s mother entered the airport’s security checkpoint in a wheelchair because she was not stable enough to walk through, Weber said.
Wheelchairs trigger certain protocols, including pat-downs and possible swabbing for explosives, Koshetz said.
“During any part of the process, if there is an alarm, then we have to resolve that alarm,” she said.
Weber said she did not know whether her mother had triggered an alarm during the 45 minutes they were detained.
She said her mother was first pulled aside into a glass-partitioned area and patted down. Then she was taken to another room to protect her privacy during a more extensive search, Weber said.
Weber said she sat outside the room during the search.
She said security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search.
Weber wheeled her mother into a bathroom, removed her diaper and returned. Her mother did not have another clean diaper with her, Weber said.
Weber said she wished there were less invasive search methods for an elderly person who is unable to walk through security gates.
“I don’t understand why they have to put them through that kind of procedure,” she said.
Koshetz said the procedures are the same for everyone to ensure national security.
“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” she said.
Weber filed a complaint through Northwest Florida Regional’s website. She said she received a response from a Homeland Security representative at the airport on Tuesday and spoke to that person on the phone Wednesday.
The representative told her that personnel had followed procedures during the search, Weber said.
“Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,” she said.
Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.
“I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.”
Post a Comment