Keep Your Lap Top IN if you have a “Checkpoint Friendly” Bag
James Brown once sang Papa's Got a Brand New Bag. Well, it may be a different kind of bag than what the Godfather was singing about, but now everybody can feel better than James Brown and keep their laptop in their “checkpoint friendly” bag as long it meets certain criteria. You may already own a “checkpoint friendly” bag and not even know it.Tomorrow (8/16) is the day that new laptop procedures roll out nationwide.
For all of you Debbie Downers out there, we realize that purchasing or owning one of these bags isn’t your free ticket to never have your laptop searched again. However, there is a darned good chance that your laptop won’t be searched. To put it in perspective, how many times has your laptop been searched when it’s been out of the bag? It’s pretty rare.
Just think of it this way, as long as there is nothing in your bag besides the laptop, you’re good to go. But, please remember that our Officers are trained to look for anomalies and if something looks odd or out of place, they will search your laptop. Next time you go through security, look around and see how many laptops are undergoing secondary screening. It’s rare.
Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re a road warrior and you’ve got all sorts of cables, adapters, gadgets and gizmos. You’re probably wondering where you’re going to put all of that stuff. Have no fear, several manufacturers have been hard at work designing bags that meet “checkpoint friendly” criteria. Just Google “checkpoint friendly laptop bags” and you’ll have a wide variety to choose from. Just remember, the TSA does not endorse any of these bags and you’ll need to be aware of our criteria to ensure you buy the right type of bag. These are some examples of bags that meet our criteria.
This new procedure will make things a little easier for our travelers while lessening the amount of preparation and recomposure time. Hopefully this will reduce your hassle factor at the checkpoint and make for happier passengers and happy passengers make the bad guys stand out.Happy traveling and we hope to hear from you here about your experiences with the new procedures.
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
1:43 PM
Subscribe in a reader
135 Comments:
The rule change described in this press release sounds good. So we can all be sure about what the current rules are, where has TSA published 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? Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
August 15, 2008 2:57 PM
For all of you Debbie Downers out there
Professional, really professional.
I thought better of you Bob.
August 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Eh... I thought the "Debbie Downer" reference was cute. *shrugs*
I am grateful for these bags. It should definitely cut down on the amount of time people spend in line, both with unloading and loading their property.
August 15, 2008 3:28 PM
Gunner said...
For all of you Debbie Downers out there
Professional, really professional.
I thought better of you Bob.
.......
It's a watch list for you, Gunner, and all you other malcontents!
August 15, 2008 3:36 PM
I am with Phil, please provide a link or a means to obtain ALL rules and regulations that one is subject to at a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport.
How can you expect people to obey and follow rules, when there is not an ALL inclusive place to find those rules. Since there are obvious repercussions if your rules are not followed then it only stands that those rules should be easily obtained.
You must have rules, as I have read from several TSO posting here, that they just do their job, and are following rules.
Don't you think it would make the entire "checkpoint process" smoother, if EVERYONE knew exactly what was expected of them prior to coming to the airport. Your failure to provide a means to view ALL the rules, would indicate that you make them up as you go along, and that the TSA is really NOT interested in serving the public, as you frequently state.
I know of no other government agency that does not have a means to obtain all rules/regulations that they are tasked to enforce.
August 15, 2008 3:49 PM
For all of you Debbie Downers out there, we realize that purchasing or owning one of these bags isn’t your free ticket to never have your laptop searched again.
We realize that fact. Now about the TSOs who either haven't heard about this, were asleep during the briefing, or make up their own rules on the spot, what are you going to do with/to them?
However, there is a darned good chance that your laptop won’t be searched. To put it in perspective, how many times has your laptop been searched when it’s been out of the bag? It’s pretty rare.
Laptop searched? Do you mean, taken apart by a TSO hot on the trail of something they can claim as being on the forbidden list, swabbed down, or attempts made by the TSO to power up the laptop so they can initiate a search like ICE has been authorized to do?
August 15, 2008 3:58 PM
From the blog: "Hopefully this will reduce your hassle factor at the checkpoint and make for happier passengers and happy passengers the bad guys stand out."
Happy passengers make bad guys stand out? This really is the Friday puppies post!
Thanks for a great laugh. I really needed it today.
August 15, 2008 4:08 PM
This is good, but it is not "evolution" it is a reversal of a former "devolution".
August 15, 2008 4:40 PM
Good morning to you
Good morning to you
We're all in our places
With bright smiling faces
This new procedure will make things a little easier for our travelers while lessening the amount of preparation and recomposure time.
That's never been an issue before. Why is recomposure time now be of any concern to TSA?
Hopefully this will reduce your hassle factor at the checkpoint and make for happier passengers and happy passengers the bad guys stand out.
Happy passengers vs bad guys. Since the definition of bad guys keeps expanding and that for years passengers were regarded by TSA as un-indicted terrorists how do we, the traveling public, know that for some unknown reason, TSA might now consider us bad guys instead of upstanding citizens?
Truncheons, mace, water-boarding, electro-shock (as was done in the old Soviet Union to unhappy citizens) or other less invasive and easier to hide such as data bases that don't really exist to track fictional passengers who just happen to have the same personal information as real travelers?
Phil, that list unfortunately, is SSI and you don't have a need to know. All you can hope for is that the TSO shows you some mercy for not knowing rules de jour.
August 15, 2008 4:44 PM
In your "criteria" link the page says:
"Recognizability: TSOs currently instruct passengers to remove all laptops from bags. This will continue except in instances where passengers have a bag that is designed to allow for a clear X-ray image. Designs should be distinguishable from other standard laptop cases." [emphasis added]
And:
"Laptop bag manufacturers may not indicate in any of their marketing, packaging, warranties, or related activities that TSA certifies, recognizes, approves, endorses, guarantees, sanctions, or in any other manner favors a particular bag or design."
"Bag manufacturers may not refer to their products as "TSA Bags" or any variation thereof..."
"# Use of the TSA logo or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seal by any bag manufacturer is specifically prohibited. Use of the TSA logo or DHS seal may constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. § 506."
Please reconcile.
Thanks.
August 15, 2008 4:54 PM
happy passengers make the bad guys stand out.
I am trying to take Earl's attitude on this and just see your ridiculous beliefs as comical, but mostly the feeling of total rage I feel every time I think "TSA" is what surges to the surface.
You guys are actually drinking your own kool-aid. "BAD GUYS" are the ones going through your silly shoe carnival and putting up with your offensive agents and ridiculous policies with a cheerful "good morning" and total co-operation.
The ones (like myself) who are freedom-loving, paranoia-free travellers who haven't bought into your irrational, paranoid vision are the ones who are not happy, who choose to use their constitutionally protected freedom of speech to tell your brown-shirt wannabee "agents" to do biologically impossible acts in language that would violate your comment policy. It is true you can never know who the terrorist is, but I can tell you, when they get to one of your check points, they will be all smiles and "yes, ma'am", "no sir", "thank you, sir" and leave your incompetent, liquids checking half-wits thinking, "what a nice man". The ones like me -- the ones who are not "happy" and leave your agents feeling angry and resentful, are the last one who would ever pose a threat to the flight.
The fact that you do not know this just proves how pointless and ineffective your pathetic agency is.
And no, I am not going to go buy a new bag just so you keep up your security farce more efficiently.
August 15, 2008 4:55 PM
"Click here to learn more about the industry process and guidelines for laptop bag [sic]."
"Your laptop bag has a designated laptop-only section that can lay [sic] flat on the X-ray belt."
(What are the chances that the Security Theater playwrights know what "sic" means? Shrug...)
August 15, 2008 5:46 PM
@gunner
Bob's just pissed that the TSA has decided to use common sense...it makes his job really hard because do justify all the stupid other stuff we harass him about...
August 15, 2008 7:04 PM
You guys are actually drinking your own kool-aid. "BAD GUYS" are the ones going through your silly shoe carnival and putting up with your offensive agents and ridiculous policies with a cheerful "good morning" and total co-operation.
***********************************
Your logic would indicate that 95 percent of the people I see daily at the checkpoint are "bad guys" simply because they smile and say good morning when they come through the mag. Come on give us a break! I don't agree with the so called "checkpoint friendly" bags or leaving a laptop in its bag. I think its totally ridiculous and uncalled for. But I'm not that high up in the chain of command, and I don't make the decisions, so I have to deal with it. But to say that the "bad guys" are the ones going through with a smile and friendly good morning is nuts! You people accept nothing for what it is. This blog was set up for the purpose of giving you some input to procedures and how they affect you at the checkpoint, instead you're using it to bash. Stop the hating, and get on with what you do.
August 15, 2008 7:08 PM
Anyone want to bet the front line TSOs have no idea about this new 'guideline' [1] and will still scream at you to remove you laptop from your 'checkpoint friendly' bag/sleeve?????
[1] TSA doesn't have rules only guidelines so the terrorists/law abiding citizens can't count on any consistency from one TSO to another. OR they are guidelines to cover up for the lack of oversight of TSOs choosing to enforce their own interpretation of what should be allowed.
August 15, 2008 7:39 PM
Anonymous:
No, MY logic does imply that everyone who is nice and happy at the checkpoint is a terrorist. My logic implies that everyone who is a terrorist is nice and happy. Lots of decent people are nice as well, but my observation was in response to Bob'b ludicrous assertion that "happy passengers make the bad guys stand out".
As for stop hating the TSA -- only once it has been liquidated thanks to the efforts of freedom loving people like myself and we get watch Chertoff's trial and sentencing on live television.
August 16, 2008 1:24 AM
Hey blogndog, we don't care if you won't buy a new laptop bag. Thats your choice. So if you forget your laptop at the security checkpoint because all of the passengers that are doing whatever they can to make things run smoothly are crowding you while you try to get yourself together. Don't blame TSA for stealing what you will eventually leave behind because of the so called farce is moving better than you expected. And from all of us incompetent liquid checking half wits who most of have more intellegence in our little toes than you'll ever gain in a lifetime keep your credit card handy to have it mailed back to you. Maybe thats not a good idea because we're so incompetent that we might loose your credit card number. This blog was designed to get constructive input from the travelers. The laptop is an issue that was brought up. So instead of using this for what it should be, you continue to use it to insult people you don't even know. You talk about paranoid. Maybe you should stay in the Stockholm area and allow those who are honestly trying to make a difference discuss the real issues. Insulting people and thier character is not the issue.
August 16, 2008 1:32 AM
You guys are actually drinking your own kool-aid. "BAD GUYS" are the ones going through your silly shoe carnival and putting up with your offensive agents and ridiculous policies with a cheerful "good morning" and total co-operation.
***********************************
Your logic would indicate that 95 percent of the people I see daily at the checkpoint are "bad guys" simply because they smile and say good morning when they come through the mag.
Put on a happy face and you suddenly become a pleasant, good guy. Frown, scowl, or show any form of displeasure at the theater and you become a bad guy.
Come on give us a break! I don't agree with the so called "checkpoint friendly" bags or leaving a laptop in its bag.
So what would you have us do? Perhaps have our laptop shipped to our destination so you don't have to deal with it? Much like the war on liquids and the failed hot foot of Reid, this will further anger the traveling public when airport after airport tells someone that their $150 laptop sock still must get opened and the laptop removed.
Guys, when you find yourself at the bottom of an ever deepening hole the first thing you should do is to stop shoveling.
Much of what TSA does is due to the knee jerk response of 9/11 and the mandate of fixing air travel so it becomes safe again. Operating a government agency on a knee jerk response shows just how little TSA management cares about the American people.
Mission creep now means more tasks to do while TSA fails to properly do their original job which was keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices off of aircraft.
With few exceptions, the traveling public really doesn't care about who is on the aircraft.
August 16, 2008 5:58 AM
This blog was set up for the purpose of giving you some input to procedures and how they affect you at the checkpoint, instead you're using it to bash. Stop the hating, and get on with what you do.
Want to see real bashing? Have blogger Bob take this blog off of moderated mode and let the comments come rolling in. You would get comments that would curl your hair.
August 16, 2008 6:03 AM
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm
August 16, 2008 9:19 AM
"Mission creep now means more tasks to do while TSA fails to properly do their original job which was keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices off of aircraft."
To be fair, TSA was failing at this even before the pointless and indefensible shoe and liquids nonsense.
August 16, 2008 12:10 PM
Tomas wrote:
"Recognizability: TSOs currently instruct passengers to remove all laptops from bags. This will continue except in instances where passengers have a bag that is designed to allow for a clear X-ray image. Designs should be distinguishable from other standard laptop cases." [emphasis added]
And:
"Laptop bag manufacturers may not indicate in any of their marketing, packaging, warranties, or related activities that TSA certifies, recognizes, approves, endorses, guarantees, sanctions, or in any other manner favors a particular bag or design."
"Bag manufacturers may not refer to their products as "TSA Bags" or any variation thereof..."
"# Use of the TSA logo or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seal by any bag manufacturer is specifically prohibited. Use of the TSA logo or DHS seal may constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. § 506."
Please reconcile.
From my understanding, the design being emphasized is supposed to, theoretically speaking, be the very design of the bag itself. Even so, the people making and selling the bags are allowed to put, like, an embroidered "checkpoint friendly" logo on the bag. The only thing they're specifically limited from putting on there is the TSA or DHS symbol, or any kind of symbol or sign or implication that TSA approves, condones, or endorses a given design or type of bag.
August 16, 2008 12:22 PM
“checkpoint friendly laptop bags”
We all remember what happened to "checkpoint friendly shoes".....
And now to another point:
Kip, in an "op-ed" piece in USA Today some time ago wrote, in part:
"Opposing view: Learn the rules before you go
TSA and our partners work hard to protect you, but we also need your help.
By Kip Hawley
"....Take a minute to learn the rules before going to the airport (www.TSA.gov). ...
Please respect the job our security officers are doing on your behalf. They use their training and experience to sort out threats among the busy flow of travelers. It is a demanding job and requires intense focus while working pleasantly with the public. ....."
Kippie, how can we "learn the rules" when we don't know them and when:
"The discretion carried out by our 43,000 Transportation Security Officers may mean that passengers might occasionally encounter slightly varying decisions at security checkpoints. Our goal is common sense security. To avoid absurd situations resulting from a mechanical enforcement of the rules, TSA entrusts its security officers to make decisions based on their training and judgment."
As USA Today wrote two years ago, your "rules" are a moving target, so I will ask again, as have others, how can we learn your "rules"?
August 16, 2008 4:02 PM
The laptop is an issue that was brought up.
Hmmm, so let's talk laptops for a minute. A coworker had TSA accidentally drop his laptop on the floor while TSOs examined it. TSA refused to either pay for the laptop to be fixed or replace it. Reason? Hazards of going through the TSA checkpoint even though TSA had the laptop in their hands before dropping it. This bag will do what to prevent this from happening?
So instead of using this for what it should be, you continue to use it to insult people you don't even know.
The professional TSOs do what is expected of them and as such blend into the airport scenery. The TSOs who display socially aberrant behavior get remembered and those are the TSOs who cause much of the grief between front line screeners and the traveling public.
You talk about paranoid.
It isn't paranoid if it is true. TSA's own policy has every passenger viewed as a un-indicted, un-arrested terrorist.
Maybe you should stay in the Stockholm area and allow those who are honestly trying to make a difference discuss the real issues.
Stockholm area? Are you trying to refer to the Stockholm Syndrome, where hostages begin to identify with their kidnappers? I really don't see how that is applicable in this case, unless TSA has begun taking hostages.
Insulting people and thier character is not the issue.
Insulting people? Pretty tame around here. If you want to see insults have blogger Bob turn off moderation for a week or more. Then you will see insults. Insulting character? Again some TSOs deserve everything they get and more for their sadistic/boarder line criminal activity. Google Flyertalk and see what people say over there about wheelchair bound people, amputees, elderly, getting the process from TSA employees. Granted it those comments are anecdotal, but if are true, show some TSOs as bullying, vindictive thugs.
August 16, 2008 5:10 PM
"Hopefully this will reduce your hassle factor at the checkpoint and make for happier passengers and happy passengers the bad guys stand out."
Are you going to give disabled people a reason to be happy?
August 16, 2008 5:18 PM
A TSA employee, posting under anonymous attacked those of us who challenge the TSA idiocy in a blog that began with Hey blogndog, we don't care if you won't buy a new laptop bag.
Dear TSA employee:
YOU are the problem. I'm willing to be that you are one of the TSA'ers who scream "do you want to fly today" at passengers who have the nerve to challenge you.
Yes, you with the blue shirt and the cheap tin badge, we are not impressed. I see mor4e professionalism at a WAL*MART that I see from the likes of YOU.
It is so easy to post under anonymous and attack people. Internet cowardice at its best. Get an ID and have some accountability. Rachel and Dean have the cajones to identify themselves.
Sure, we hammer Bob, and Christopher and the other bloggers, but for the most part those of us who "sign our posts" try hard not to get personal with them. They are trying. It has to be tough defending some of the TSA policies and posting the garbage that the PR department hands them.
But YOU come in here regularly and do your attack mode bit in total anonymity. I'm too lazy to look, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that you are the one that posted that garbage about putting your lives on the line for us.
So step up.
Oh, and when you trace me back and add me to a list, it is just fine, because frankly, my response to the "do you want to fly today?" question is not particularly
August 16, 2008 7:04 PM
"Hopefully this will reduce your hassle factor at the checkpoint and make for happier passengers and happy passengers make the bad guys stand out."
So this is what TSA needs to make its BDO program work? To make all the non-terrorists more calm than the terrorists so they stand out more?
You are idiots, and things like this is why.
August 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Just in case the idea needs a third, a 100% complete, official, everything you need to know rules and regs document would be a great thing to publish. I know it'll ruin the power trip for some of the employees, us knowing everything they do and all, but it's a good idea. For one, we'd at least know what to expect, and when the document grows to be hundreds of pages long, we have better evidence of the overreaching mission of the screening.
August 17, 2008 10:53 AM
I understand that these checks are part of making us safe. However, last few times I had to use airport, I had troubles while getting my laptop out of my luggage.
Probably I should go for one of these "checkpoint friendly" bags as well.
August 17, 2008 11:39 AM
This was a very good article. I agree with Bob Eucher. There needs to be a place to go to download this information so that I can have a hard copy. And also give to our employees to make travel more streamline.
August 17, 2008 1:12 PM
Here's my question -- why can't we just cut out the middle man and use x-ray machines that allow us to keep our laptops in our existing bags? I know they've been tested in U.S. airports, and are standard at all airports in the UK. Plus, I really like the backpack I'm carrying now and I don't want to buy a new one.
August 17, 2008 4:02 PM
For Blogger Bob.
Bob, it seems you are the last EOS Blog Rep. Are you?
So where do we go from here?
There is no two way discussion here. Only the weekly post or two from TSA and then the public asking exactly the same questions over and over.
Even though you said you would answer the top 10 questions we all know that very few of the remarks made were really answers at all.
I am very serious, where is this blog headed?
Hope your handlers will let you answer.
August 17, 2008 9:02 PM
If the most extreme critics want TSA dissolved, so be it, I won't argue the point. Go ahead and reprivatize it. However, no $15B bailouts for any airlines or security companies in the event of another major terrorist attack. Private companies can do better? Fine, I believe you. Then let them take ALL the risk too, not just the profit.
Heh, and if that attack did occur, the ironic part is that the surviving airlines (what few would remain) would be 10 times more strict and intrusive in security than TSA ever thought of being, because of liability concerns. Don't you get it? The "security theater" of TSA has never been for the PAX benefit, but ultimately for the airlines.
August 18, 2008 7:49 AM
I googled it and one of the top stories was titled:
"Chinese manufacturers help get checkpoint-friendly laptop bags to U.S. airports"
Glad to see we're helping out the Chinese economy!
I guess I'm a "bad guy standing out" because I don't want to shell out the money for a new laptop bag. Great.
August 18, 2008 12:17 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "If the most extreme critics want TSA dissolved, so be it, I won't argue the point. Go ahead and reprivatize it. However, no $15B bailouts for any airlines or security companies in the event of another major terrorist attack."
Umm, some airlines didn't get any bailouts. United didn't get jack, for example.
It wasn't security that failed on 9/11 anyway. I don't know why TSA doesn't get that. It was the fact that the policy was in place to comply with hijackers that 9/11 happened. Geez.
"Private companies can do better? Fine, I believe you. Then let them take ALL the risk too, not just the profit."
Why? TSA isn't assuming any of the risk. We can't even get them to pay for items they damage or lose? I don't think TSA is in ANY position to lecture about assuming liability.
So if the security company was doing everything that TSA or whoever was regulating them said and screening was performed properly, you would just let them out to dry? What if it was bad policy that they had to follow that allowed the incident? What if it wasn't even their fault?
Tell me, what responsibility would TSA assume if something were to happen today?
"Heh, and if that attack did occur, the ironic part is that the surviving airlines (what few would remain) would be 10 times more strict and intrusive in security than TSA ever thought of being, because of liability concerns. Don't you get it? The "security theater" of TSA has never been for the PAX benefit, but ultimately for the airlines."
So you're admitting that TSA is nothing but theater and is only there to prop up an ailing industry?
The airlines or whoever implements the security are still bound by law. If the gov't passed knee jerk laws like they did in the wake of 9/11 that created TSA, sure, some things like that could happen. Otherwise, let them be sued and stand on the merits of whether they did was expected of them. If they did, then nothing will happen. If they didn't, they deserve to pay. Private security shouldn't be held liable if it wasn't their fault and they did what they were supposed to do. Let them be sued if they're negligent.
Even so, it would STILL be MORE recourse than what would happen if something happened under TSA's watch. The gov't would claim sovereign immunity, pretty much immediately throwing out any lawsuits against it. We'd STILL get the same invasive procedures you'd say we get in a private scenario.
Nothing was fundamentally wrong with security pre 9/11. It worked and they did what they were supposed to under the rules that they head. Sure, some things could have been improved on. However, we got the mess that is TSA instead and security is no better, and arguably worse, and it costs a whole lot more.
Honestly, your description sounds more like someone who's afraid of losing their job rather than someone who really cares about security. Well, I guess that's security to some extent you care about ... job security.
Robert
August 18, 2008 1:00 PM
If the most extreme critics want TSA dissolved, so be it, I won't argue the point. Go ahead and reprivatize it.
TSA dissolved? Never said that. I want TSA held accountable for its actions. I want TSA focused on their first and primary mission keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices off of the aircraft. I want them to have a better than 50 percent success rate at detection (red team tests). I want TSA to treat both passengers and their belongings with common courtesy. Shouldn't be too big of an effort since many countries already do this.
However, no $15B bailouts for any airlines or security companies in the event of another major terrorist attack. Private companies can do better? Fine, I believe you. Then let them take ALL the risk too, not just the profit.
9/11 occurred because of a near universal policy (by the airlines) of dealing with the hijackers, giving them what they want and not fighting back. That policy is in the toilet. Passengers will fight back.
Heh, and if that attack did occur, the ironic part is that the surviving airlines (what few would remain) would be 10 times more strict and intrusive in security than TSA ever thought of being, because of liability concerns. Don't you get it? The "security theater" of TSA has never been for the PAX benefit, but ultimately for the airlines.
I travel often and airline employees don't have a high regard for TSA doing much for airline security.
August 18, 2008 1:30 PM
Numerous people have repeatedly asked,
Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
Jeremy wrote:
"a 100% complete, official, everything you need to know rules and regs document would be a great thing to publish."
Jeremy, I'm not even asking for a "100% complete, everything you need to know" document. All I want is a pointer to the place where the special rules travelers must follow in order to pass a United States Government airport checkpoint are published. There are plenty of rules that apply outside the checkpoint that are none of TSA's concern, and it would be unreasonable for us to ask them to repeat all of that. And I'm not asking them to tell us "all we need to know" -- that's best left up to us and our lawyers. Just show me the rules I'm required to follow, please.
Bob, can you do this for us? If not, how can you expect us to follow the rules? Are we to just guess and then wait for your security guards to tell us if we're following the rules or not?
August 18, 2008 1:50 PM
When you are done scratching your head over this latest "security measure" (TIP don't bother), ask your self after watching this TSA surveillance video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcCmmaCqZhg if this laptop bag is really worth it. Kudos to the bad guys for showing how pathetic we've all become!
August 18, 2008 3:09 PM
"I understand that these checks are part of making us safe."
No. Nothing TSA does makes anyone safe.
August 18, 2008 4:11 PM
In response to the earlier blog entry, it's now apparent why the TSA is planning on ending the distribution of paper complaint forms in favor of a web-based submission system: unnecessarily detained, verbally-abused people in holding pens don't have internet access.
"...After four hours, I finally demanded to speak to the guards' supervisor, and he was called down. I asked if the detainees could file a formal complaint. He said there were complaint forms (which, in English and Spanish, direct one to the Department of Homeland Security's Web site, where one must enter extensive personal information in order to file a "Trip Summary") but initially refused to hand them out or to give me his telephone number. "The Department of Homeland Security is understaffed, underfunded, and I have men here who are doing 14-hour days." He tried to intimidate me when I wrote down his name -- "So, you're writing down our names. Well, we have more on you" -- and asked me questions about my address and my profession in front of the rest of the people detained....
...A large crowd began to gather. Everyone wanted to voice complaints. I explained to the supervisor that his guards had been making people afraid. He flipped through the green files, tossing the American passports to the front of the pile. "You should have gone first, before these people. American citizens first -- that's how it should be." In the face of dozens of requests and questions, he turned and left...
-At JFK Airport, Denying Basic Rights Is Just Another Day at the Office by Emily Feder
I didn't realize that traveling through Syria or Lebanon was a crime. Especially, given that there is a travel warning, but not a ban, and the United States maintains embassies in both countries, which have a wealth of cultural and artistic treasures, despite the brutal, sadistic men who run them and the terrorist proxy groups that infest them.
How exactly are we expected to report an 'unfavorable customer experience' if the employees of the TSA and DHS are allowed to hide their identities and utilize intimidation tactics as cover for their time spent playing out their own personal Stanford Prison Experiment?
August 18, 2008 4:54 PM
It wasn't security that failed on 9/11 anyway. I don't know why TSA doesn't get that. It was the fact that the policy was in place to comply with hijackers that 9/11 happened. Geez.
***********************************
Robert;
security did INDEED fail on 9/11/2001, and here's how:
at the time, the weapons that were used (boxcutters) were permitted on board the airplane. In at least two cases where the highjackers were scrutinized with "additional security measures" those measures were not found to have been appropriately applied. For instance, upon review of the tape it was found that one private contractor's employee failed to resolve hand held metal detector alarms around the highjackers rear pocket areas. It was also found that the only additional measure put in place with selectee screening at the time was to hold the baggage off the plane until the passenger who was specified under the CAPS progam had actually boarded. Security measures were not adequate at the time, and contracted employees failed to do what they were supposed to do. The object is to KEEP THEM OFF THE PLANE not stop them after they are ON the plane for god's sake! We are not interested in stopping someone who has boarded the plane, that's why we have air marshals on planes now. We are more interested in making sure they don't get on the plane to begin with. Say what you want about "security theater" "TSA sucks" whatever you want to say, the fact remains that the measures in place now, though an inconvenience to you, are better than they were pre-9/11/2001.
August 18, 2008 5:06 PM
We’ve had public guidance on air travel on our web page for years. You can find it here.
It sounds to me like you folks are asking for our SOP to be made public. Even our staunchest critic would have to realize that releasing our SOP to passengers would not be the best security move.
I've taken the info from the public page and taught classes to passengers with disabilities before on how to travel through the checkpoint. The information is there. It is helpful. You just have to realize that it's not gospel. Knowing the information could get you through the checkpoint with no problems, but then again, there is always the slight chance that something could trigger secondary screening, whether it's your behavior, the way you packed your bag, or some other kind of anomaly...
Look, I completely understand that you want to know all of our procedures. I also understand that it's frustrating at times to not understand what's going on or why. It's just not the nature of our business to hand out the playbook.
Bob
Eos Blog Team
August 18, 2008 5:10 PM
To those of you who keep asking for a list of the rules:
Why do you want the terrorists to win?
The TSA has told us many times that there is no consistency because it will keep us safer.
August 18, 2008 5:18 PM
I wrote:
"Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication."
Bob of the EOS blog team responded:
"We’ve had public guidance on air travel on our web page for years. You can find it here.
"It sounds to me like you folks are asking for our SOP to be made public."
Bob, please don't change the subject and deny us something we never requested. We're not asking for your organization's operating procedures, public guidance or any guidance. We're asking for a written and published list of all the rules TSA will require us to follow beyond those which we are already obligated by law to follow, if we wish to pass through a U.S. Government checkpoint in an airport en route to the gate from which our domestic commercial flight is scheduled to depart.
Can you provide this? If you will not show us the rules, how can you expect us to follow those rules? We want to follow the rules if that is what it takes in order for us to travel. Are we to just guess and then wait for your security guards to tell us if we're following the rules or not?
You are restricting the freedom of movement of millions of people based on these rules. Why will you not show us the rules you require us to follow if we are to travel via the only means that is practical in most cases?
August 18, 2008 5:22 PM
"where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to"
Comrades, have you not heard? Some of the laws in neo America are, shhhh, secret.
Have you not heard of Gilmore vs Gonzales? Do you not know about the buildings that it is secretly illegal to photograph?
Do you not understand that our safety from the terrorists depends on living under secret laws and regulations?
August 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Bob writes:
Look, I completely understand that you want to know all of our procedures. I also understand that it's frustrating at times to not understand what's going on or why. It's just not the nature of our business to hand out the playbook.
Except that sometimes, it is.
Cryptographers have a principle known as
Kerckhoffs' principle. Basically, it states that a cryptographic system should be designed to be secure, even if all of the procedures used in executing the system are known.
Would it really change security all that much if TSA's playbook were published? Sure, terrorists would know your procedures. But if your procedures were sound, it shouldn't matter if they are known them or not. Plus, if you know that your enemy knows your procedure, then you'll be that much more strongly motivated to make sure that you are relying on the strength of your procedures, not the secrecy of them.
(And, to be blunt, a determined terrorist will figure out your procedures anyways. Military secrets are the most fleeting of all.)
August 18, 2008 5:49 PM
Bob wrote:
"Look, I completely understand that you want to know all of our procedures. I also understand that it's frustrating at times to not understand what's going on or why. It's just not the nature of our business to hand out the playbook."
Reading through the comments posted I'm not getting the sense that people want to know our procedures. For example, you do step x and then step y for a handwand. There seems to be alot frustration from individuals not knowing what to expect when traveling. There is the website which does have some good information but it can be difficult to navigate. There should be a step by step process guide that outlines the rules and regs. Starting with approaching the checkpoint talk about ID checks what are the rules. Acceptable forms of ID, traveling with no ID, lost ID, ETC. Then move through the entire process outlining what is expected of the passenger. This could be done without violating SSI reguirements. It would also make for easier passenger flow which would reduce passenger anxiety, which is what is what we are attempting to do with the x-ray friendly bags.
August 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Quote from Anonymous:"Robert;
security did INDEED fail on 9/11/2001, and here's how:
at the time, the weapons that were used (boxcutters) were permitted on board the airplane."
If anyone's at fault, that's the government's not security's. Arguably, box cutters still aren't a threat. Considering there are knives (supplied with dinner service in business and first classes), scissors, and other sharp objects (even a broken wine bottle would work), this is really a nonsequitor.
"In at least two cases where the highjackers were scrutinized with "additional security measures" those measures were not found to have been appropriately applied. For instance, upon review of the tape it was found that one private contractor's employee failed to resolve hand held metal detector alarms around the highjackers rear pocket areas. It was also found that the only additional measure put in place with selectee screening at the time was to hold the baggage off the plane until the passenger who was specified under the CAPS progam had actually boarded."
Funny thing is, even with those "failures", which in the end, would have found that they didn't have any prohibited items anyway, they were still batting WAY better than TSA. I'd take 2 in 19 failures over 20 of 22 failures as TSA has given us.
"Security measures were not adequate at the time, and contracted employees failed to do what they were supposed to do. The object is to KEEP THEM OFF THE PLANE not stop them after they are ON the plane for god's sake!" We are not interested in stopping someone who has boarded the plane, that's why we have air marshals on planes now. We are more interested in making sure they don't get on the plane to begin with."
No, that's NOT your job. The sooner TSA realizes that, the sooner they can actually improve security.
YOUR job as an agency is to screen passengers for prohibited items. No more. If anyone has the job of keeping baddies off the planes, it's law enforcement and intelligence agencies. You have no proof of any malintent short of finding prohibited items unless you guys are using psychics to try to figure out what exactly a person's thinking. You're denying people the right to move freely based on watch lists (inaccurate at ones that with little to no recourse of getting fixed ... trying being a Robert Johnson when DHS has flat out said that name will never be removed from the list), "gut feelings," and just not looking right. All of this without any sort of due process.
I don't care who's on the plane with me as long as YOU do YOUR job of screening them for prohibited items. It's NOT TSA's job to play judge, jury, and executioner with respect to who gets to fly and who doesn't based on anything else. It does like to think that though.
Say what you want about "security theater" "TSA sucks" whatever you want to say, the fact remains that the measures in place now, though an inconvenience to you, are better than they were pre-9/11/2001.
Empirical data would say otherwise.
Robert
August 18, 2008 6:08 PM
Jason, you're on the right track. However, I don't want a guide to what to expect; I want a list of the rules I have to follow in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted at a U.S. Government checkpoint in the airport.
Start here: Imagine I'm walking through the airport and there is no checkpoint. I know what the laws of the land are, and as long as I do not break them, I will not be hassled by my government. (I also know what additional rules are imposed by way of my contract with the airline, but I needn't be concerned with them until later, when I deal with the airline and their property.) Now, add the government checkpoint into the situation. I'm stopped there, and can only legally proceed in the direction I was traveling prior to the stop if I follow certain additional rules. (e.g., I may not carry weapons on my person. I may not carry more than 3.4 oz. of liquid unless I split it into 3.4 oz. portions, etc.) What are all the additional rules am I subject to at that checkpoint? I still want to be able to go about my business without interference from my government, and the way to do so is to follow the rules that we and our government have set forth for ourselves.
Does that help? I don't think it's as complicated as some are making it out to be. Please, just show me where you have published the rules you require me to follow so I can be sure to follow them.
These aren't the policies of another private entity with which I may or may not choose to do business; these are rules that the only federal government available requires me to follow unless I'm willing to be prevented from traveling. I don't think it's a bit unreasonable to expect that government to tell me what the rules are so that I can follow those rules.
Pointing me to some guides, giving me an idea of what to expect, publishing revisions to existing rules only by press release or blog post, just doesn't cut it. That's not the way the law in the United States is supposed to work; this is not supposed to be a place where we subject people to secret laws.
August 18, 2008 6:34 PM
"However, I don't want a guide to what to expect; I want a list of the rules I have to follow in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted at a U.S. Government checkpoint in the airport."
Part and parcel of rules for passengers would be rules for the government. Spell out exactly what TSOs can and cannot do, in black and white. (To any TSA apologists who flip out at the mere suggestion that TSA be restricted in any way, I note that we have such rules for the government in this country: They're called the Constitution.)
August 18, 2008 7:19 PM
To those of you who keep asking for a list of the rules:
Why do you want the terrorists to win?
The TSA has told us many times that there is no consistency because it will keep us safer.
Rules so secret that TSOs don't know them is a guaranteed recipe for failure. How do you know how to do your job if you are clueless as to what is demanded of you?
August 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Phil,
Sorry, but TSA is above all rules and regulations. Rules and regulations apply only to the little people, not the giant monolith called Homeland Security.
August 18, 2008 8:02 PM
The BLOG is moderated. Everything you are being searched for has been tryied by a terrorist before. Check any news mag. Things are changing for the better because of your positive comments. Please leave sugestions for improvment besides complaints. Also Please leave your opinion; Do you care if the TSO checking you is wearing a tie? Do you even notice? They are a big nucience for us but are required by the SOP. Blogdog keep it up, but send ideas too.
August 18, 2008 8:26 PM
Robert Johnson, I have one question for you, have you actually taken the time to read the lengthy 9/11 comission report? I have, and the recommendations made in that report, and the findings of the report were quite alarming. You say the failures of the private companies are less than those of TSA, but statistics prove otherwise on that one single day alone in 2001. I won't argue the point with you Robert, I will tell you this, I DO MY JOB to the fullest, be it screening for prohibs, or keeping bad guys off the plane, I consider myself to be more proficient than the pre september 11 screening contractors. Not only do I do my job, Robert, but I do it with a smile and I feel I'm making a difference. Your contention that "you're restricting freedom of movement" is arguable at best...I'm restricting nothing, the Federal Government is restricting movement if that's what you wanna call it. Look, we can go back and forth all night long, and get nowhere, you want to fly, and I have a job to do. The sooner I do my job the sooner you get on your plane, and you'll never hear me ask you if you wanna to fly that day, its not my style. Come to PHL Robert, and ask for Tom I'll get you on your plane with a smile no matter how much you grumble. Oh by the way, that's Tom, checkpoint C first shift. Ask for me. :-)
August 18, 2008 8:34 PM
@Bob,
You are being deliberately dense, as it has been perfectly clear what people what and you attack straw men. We want a well organized document that lists exactly what rules one needs to follow. For example exactly what IDs will be considered valid. This will be necessity be a boring document with numbered paragraphs. However it is one that we can then bring with us and point at when a TSO makes something up out of sadism.
Consider driving, every state has a list of laws... something like "Speed must not exceed the posted limit, or if there is no posted limit 55 mph in the country and 25 in town. See section 6.3.2 for definitions of country and town."
You can take these laws to court and get tickets thrown out if you were going under the posted limit regardless of what the cop feels the speed limit should be that day. (Excluding the extra provisions for operating safely in inclimate weather....)
August 18, 2008 8:41 PM
Start here: Imagine I'm walking through the airport and there is no checkpoint. I know what the laws of the land are, and as long as I do not break them, I will not be hassled by my government. (I also know what additional rules are imposed by way of my contract with the airline, but I needn't be concerned with them until later, when I deal with the airline and their property.) Now, add the government checkpoint into the situation. I'm stopped there, and can only legally proceed in the direction I was traveling prior to the stop if I follow certain additional rules. (e.g., I may not carry weapons on my person. I may not carry more than 3.4 oz. of liquid unless I split it into 3.4 oz. portions, etc.) What are all the additional rules am I subject to at that checkpoint? I still want to be able to go about my business without interference from my government, and the way to do so is to follow the rules that we and our government have set forth for ourselves.
***********************************
Okay, I get what you're saying. Lets try this, you're at the checkpoint, and the sign says, "interfering with screening personel...." etc....these are some of the rules your subject to. The problem comes in where the public thinks there are MORE rules than there are. Lets simplify it:
1. Don't interfere with the screening process. Don't intimidate TSO's (lets not argue about this now because we all know that some TSO's can be rude).
2. Take your shoes off
2a. if you're diabetic or have a condition which prevents you from taking your shoes off, you are subect to a shoe swab.
3. If your laptop is not in a checkpoint friendly bag, please take it out and xray it separately.
3a. If your laptop is xrayed in side a non checkpoint friendly bag it is subject to additional screening.
4. Make sure your LGA's are properly packaged and xrayed separately as well.
4a. No weapons, incendiary's or explosives please. Also, fireworks are prohibited as well.
5. Be patient with us (again lets not argue this one)
6. Show us your boarding pass and ID please.
7. Show boarding pass again at the mag, your id is no longer necessary.
8. Collect your property and go on your way.
I don't think there are many other rules that you need to worry about unless something comes up that causes concern, and in that case its not a rule per se, its something that occurred during the process. Its really that simple.
August 18, 2008 8:59 PM
@Phil:
If TSA published a list of rules like you desire, screeners wouldn't be able to make up rules as they go.
We wouldn't want to take a perk away from their job now, would we?
August 18, 2008 10:29 PM
Phil wrote:
I don't think it's a bit unreasonable to expect that government to tell me what the rules are so that I can follow those rules.
Y'know, man, I actually sat down and started thinking about what you wrote there. The information is out there, for the most part, it's just not all put into a single encompassing list.
There are signs at all (or, at least, most - granted I haven't been through all the airpots, but I can't see how this would be different) the checkpoints telling people that they have to take their jackets off, remove metal off their persons, take their shoes off, etc. Here at Huntsville we have nineteen signs total and a great big flat-panel TV over the arch in front of the security checkpoint with all the information on a slideshow.
We even have signs telling people the limit of film speed that's safe to go through the x-ray (up to 800, btw), and the same sign also informs the reader that if they don't want it going through the x-ray anyway, then to just tell one of the TSOs and we'll hand-search it.
Also, there are these neat little pamphlets. I haven't seen one in a bit, but they used to be all over the airline ticket counters down in the lobby with an exhaustive prohibited items list, and the passengers were allowed to keep them. The only thing that was out of date, last I saw it, was cigarette lighters - they're permitted again.
And, yeah, we also have a few signs with the 3.1.1 regulations on them, and signs for what people should do if they have pacemakers. Not to mention the signs instructing passengers to have photo IDs and boarding passes handy.
The more I thought about what your specific question is, the more it occurred to me that most of the information is already out there, and most of the information is also contained on the TSA website -- albeit not in a very functional, easy-to-find manner. You kinda' have to dig around there for it.
But even the take-home pamphlet of the prohibited items list is basically the same from the TSA website's.
(And, by the way, the LGAs are listed on the TSA website as well as the checkpoint signs as being limited to 3.0oz - this is technically accurate. TSOs can exempt items up to 3.4oz without needing justification, so it just kind-of became a de facto limit, though I think the technical, official limit is 3.0oz. Any TSOs want to jump in and let me know if that was officially changed, or if that's still the case? To be bluntly honest though, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if most of the other TSOs [or supervisors, for that matter] didn't know about this. It's just something that someone who's religiously devoted to reading and understanding and comprehending our SOP would know.)
As a matter of fact, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that's a regulation and isn't formally listed is the procedure for screening fire blankets and military chemical suits. They should be on the website under the special items listing in the aviation section, but aren't.
[the following is written approximately an hour after the rest of the stuff above this]
Okay. So I just picked through the TSA website with a fine-tooth comb, particularly the prohibited items list, particularly the special considerations and special items sections, as well as the traveling with disabilities section.
Everything I picked through with that fine-tooth comb is pretty much directly correlated with our own internal, official* procedures. After spending entirely too much time doing this (my wife has asked me at least three times if I was done yet~), I'm going to say with certainty that the TSA.gov website has pretty much everything you need to know, except the procedures for fire blankets and military chemical suits. The travel documents page also seems to be lacking, but most of the general information is there. Everything else - like what to do if you've been pulled over for secondary screening - pretty much just boils down to "follow instructions." And, occasionally, there's a gaff. Like this little nugget:
The TSA traveler's guide states:
While not a sinister item, it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 cash.
Which is true... kind-of; In the context of traveling internationally and not having declared the money to Customs. There's nothing legally wrong with carrying fifteen grand on your person domestically - it's just stupid. :D
Was there anything in particular you were wanting to know about, Phil?
* - Note the term "official procedures." Screening personnel, previously just the supervisors but now they're adding the TSOs to the mix, have a great deal of leeway in regard to some things. Not all, but some. For example, TSOs, with a justifiably compelling and extraordinary reason, can allow just about any liquid or gel or aerosol item to go through the checkpoint regardless of size. That doesn't change the fact that the official regulation is still in place. Another example is the now-infamous homemade battery pack was stopped because a supervisor made the call that it was too much akin to a realistic replica of an explosive device. Call him stupid all you want to (and, granted, we at HSV would've likely let it through given that we're used to seeing these sorts of things) but that supervisor still made the call, and they weren't necessarily wrong in doing so.
The prohibited items list isn't exhaustive by any means. For example, sonic disruptors (the real-life portable, weaker ones that look like megaphones, not the Star Trek ones. They're used for crowd control by police forces - flip it on, point it at a group of people, and about sixty seconds later they're all falling over dizzy and throwing up everything they ate for the past ten years. They have much more powerful ones that work much, much faster, but they're mounted on the backs of trucks) aren't on the prohibited items list, but there ain't a sane person at any checkpoint who would let it go through if they recognized it for what it is. A fair bit (I'd personally say about 30%) of the things we see every day are either let through or stopped based upon a judgment call by the person who sees it. Hopefully, if the person who sees it can't quite decide, they'd call for their supervisor, or ask one of their colleagues - the TSOs (like myself) who have been with TSA for almost six years now have a pretty good grasp of what should, and what should not, go through the checkpoint based upon whether or not it could be used as a viable weapon.
[and then, after having written all of the rest of this, I finished Phil's post]
Phil wrote:
Pointing me to some guides, giving me an idea of what to expect, publishing revisions to existing rules only by press release or blog post, just doesn't cut it.
...Gah.
I should've finished your post before devoting myself to a couple hours of writing and research and a wife that's now glowering at me dubiously.
You say it doesn't cut it, but that's all that there is. It's published, it's there. The fact that you don't like it, and for whatever reason don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that it's not.
Quadruple negatives, yo; it's the grammatical wave of the future. :)
August 18, 2008 11:31 PM
My biggest concern about the TSA comes from situations described in articles like "At JFK Airport, Denying Basic Rights Is Just Another Day at the Office", at http://www.alternet.org/rights/95351.
I would really like to hear what the TSA is doing about the general attitude exhibited by the "professionals" described in that posting, though I realize that the specifics of that situation may not be appropriate for sharing in a public forum.
It's human rights abuses like that which give TSA a bad name, not just taking an extra 5 minutes to open a laptop bag.
Thank you for your time.
August 19, 2008 1:22 AM
Anonymous wrote:
"To those of you who keep asking for a list of the rules:
Why do you want the terrorists to win?
The TSA has told us many times that there is no consistency because it will keep us safer."
Anonymous, the terrorists have already won.
August 19, 2008 7:13 AM
Bob said...
We’ve had public guidance on air travel on our web page for years. You can find it here.
It sounds to me like you folks are asking for our SOP to be made public. Even our staunchest critic would have to realize that releasing our SOP to passengers would not be the best security move.
Bob, you've been drinking to much TSA koolaide.
No one has asked for SOP. So don't even try making that claim.
Several people have asked many, many times for a complete list of rules travelers must abide by to pass a TSA Checkpoint. Nothing more. Nothing more!
The information on the TSA webpage does not even agree with itself. What information there is has been spread over several different pages and is not complete or is not accurate in all cases. Your agency has even posted information here that is apparently not true.
If TSA really wants calmer checkpoints would it not help if we travelers know what we must do to move through the checpoint without problems?
Does giving the public false information improve the flow through the checkpoint?
This is not a country where secret laws are accepted.
Why don't you guys try being truthful for a change?
August 19, 2008 9:41 AM
Please address the following item in a future blog post. I've seen it many places and it really does make it look like ya'll are doing evil:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/18/human-rights-worker.html
August 19, 2008 11:29 AM
Bob,
I want to know the rules so I can keep TSA from taking my stuff.
What you seem to be telling me is that there are no rules, and that if a screener (and his supervisor) wanted to take my shoelaces, they could. Calling shoelaces a "replica of a garrote" might even earn them a citation on your website.
TSA's secret laws, arbitrary enforcement, and brazen unaccountability makes it a ruleless renegade agency which is a danger to the things that are good about America.
August 19, 2008 11:38 AM
Hi, my name is Debbie and I am offended blah, blah. Complain, complain. Have any of you ever thought that productive criticism instead of attacks could bring on more engaged dialogue? It is nice to get things off your chest but calling each other names is not productive. It is starting to feel like a tank full of hungry sharks. I will hold my thoughts until I see if this really aids the passengers.
August 19, 2008 11:55 AM
TSO Tom wrote:
"Robert Johnson, I have one question for you, have you actually taken the time to read the lengthy 9/11 comission report?"
Robert, have you read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, by David Ray Griffin? Have you heard that the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission now say their report was incomplete and flawed?
As reported by Peter Tatchel of The Guardian on September 12 2007, chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have since stated that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges. Also note that despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the disaster remain unanswered. Despite these unanswered questions, the 9/11 Commission was closed down on August 21, 2004.
August 19, 2008 1:10 PM
FunkyMonkey wrote:
"Please address the following item in a future blog post. I've seen it many places and it really does make it look like ya'll are doing evil:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/18/human-rights-worker.html"
The article in question is about Customs and not the TSA, while still a part of Homeland Security they are two seperate entities.
August 19, 2008 1:29 PM
Robert Johnson wrote:
Quoted from Anonymous, "Say what you want about "security theater" "TSA sucks" whatever you want to say, the fact remains that the measures in place now, though an inconvenience to you, are better than they were pre-9/11/2001."
"Empirical data would say otherwise."
Robert I agree with your entire post except this last part. You are comparing testing rates between pre-TSA and TSA, which would be fine if the tests were the same. The level of testing has definately changed. Difficulty levels make a comparision akin to apples to oranges. Don't get me wrong I believe that TSA has a long way to go to improve security measures and increase their test scores but to compare two systems that used different methods and objects for testing is unfair.
August 19, 2008 1:39 PM
HSVTSO Dean writes:
(I'm gonna pick this apart quite a bit, Dean ... mainly because I think it actually illustrates several important points, not because you're worthy of picking on. I appreciate your straight answers to straight questions. Thanks.)
The information is out there, for the most part, it's just not all put into a single encompassing list.
Which means that if I poke around and read three or four different TSA webpages, I might know all the rules, and I might not. There's no way to know if I've found all of the relevant information.
Also, there are these neat little pamphlets. I haven't seen one in a bit, but they used to be all over the airline ticket counters down in the lobby with an exhaustive prohibited items list, and the passengers were allowed to keep them. The only thing that was out of date, last I saw it, was cigarette lighters - they're permitted again.
You've just undercut your own argument; you've admitted that this resource that's supposed to let people know what the rules are isn't correct. So what happens when I get to a checkpoint with a lighter, and some TSO says I can't bring it aboard because "the pamphlet says so"? How do I convince the TSO that the TSA's paperwork (s)he's holding is obsolete?
The more I thought about what your specific question is, the more it occurred to me that most of the information is already out there, and most of the information is also contained on the TSA website -- albeit not in a very functional, easy-to-find manner. You kinda' have to dig around there for it.
And how do I know when I'm done digging for it? How do I know that there's not some other rule that's gonna tell me that my perfectly reasonable yet unusual personal item is prohibited on board?
But even the take-home pamphlet of the prohibited items list is basically the same from the TSA website's.
By "basically the same", you mean "different". Which one is correct? And how can I tell?
TSOs can exempt items up to 3.4oz without needing justification, so it just kind-of became a de facto limit, though I think the technical, official limit is 3.0oz. Any TSOs want to jump in and let me know if that was officially changed, or if that's still the case?
So you, as a TSO, don't know with absolute certainty whether the fluids limit is 3.0oz or 3.4oz. If you don't know what the rules are, and you're the one enforcing the rules, how am I supposed to prepare to follow them?
The travel documents page also seems to be lacking, but most of the general information is there. Everything else - like what to do if you've been pulled over for secondary screening - pretty much just boils down to "follow instructions." And, occasionally, there's a gaff.
So, absolutely everything we need to know is there, except for the stuff that's wrong. How am I supposed to know the difference?
If TSA wants passengers to learn the rules before getting to the checkpoint, then TSA needs to provide all the rules in one, coherent, correct presentation. Otherwise, TSA needs to back off the "blame-the-victim" mentality I've seen exhibited here by some TSOs ("it's your fault for not knowing the rules").
[Note: not from you, Dean. You're a good guy.]
August 19, 2008 1:49 PM
Okay, here's an idea to Bob and TSA:
how about publishing a brochure that would help the passengers understand some of the "rules" that apply at the checkpoint. Let's forget the SOP, how to's and what nots....simply a brochure that explains what is necesarry for the passenger to make it through the checkpoint area problem free. For instance it could contain the statement that is shown on the signs at the checkpoint about interfering with intimidating or assaulting screening officers at the checkpoint. It could also contain information on shoes, laptops, boarding passes, id's etc. Available at the TDC area it would help them through the checkpoint problem free. What do you think guys, can this be done? Also, listing applicable laws that give rise to these rules would help with the process as well.
August 19, 2008 1:49 PM
@Anonymous Debbie: "Hi, my name is Debbie and I am offended blah, blah. Complain, complain. Have any of you ever thought that productive criticism instead of attacks could bring on more engaged dialogue? It is nice to get things off your chest but calling each other names is not productive. It is starting to feel like a tank full of hungry sharks. I will hold my thoughts until I see if this really aids the passengers.
You haven't been around here very long, have you?
Many of us have been here since the beginning and have offered the constructive cricitism. The problem is that TSA doesn't listen and doesn't care, and quite honestly, it's frustrating. You see that frustration with the repeated questions because they don't really answer them. The best ones are half answers at best, and many of them are "just trust us" or "because we say so."
TSA needs to be challenged on these things. And if we seem upset, yeah, we are. Many of us have to deal with their madness on a daily basis and THAT gets old.
So when TSA starts giving us the DIALOGUE it promised us, maybe things will calm down a bit. It shouldn't take weeks of harping to get answers.
August 19, 2008 2:00 PM
@dean
While I appreciate the time you put into your post, you are deliberately walking around the issue. The rules have to be exhaustive and NOT use weasel words like "Prohibited items include but are not limited to..." The reason we want these rules is so that we can prove we are in the right.
Consider the example raised by another commentator earlier: A shoelace considered by a TSO to be a garrot. What rule can be pointed to to _prove_ the TSO is wrong? Saying we just have to rely on the mercy of the supervisor doesn't cut it - this ain't, yet, the soviet union. There is no such things as a nation of laws if the laws are secret.
August 19, 2008 2:07 PM
Phil, yeah, I've read that stuff. I've found it's always best to read government documents with a skeptical mind. Just like anything else, there's always an agenda that's trying to be pushed. I'm a "show me the money" kind of guy.
I didn't agree with a lot of the things the 9/11 commission put out. The problem I had with it was that it was to be taken as absolute gospel and could never be questioned. Doesn't mean that there aren't good things in it, but I also remember that their report is the basis for a lot of the stupidity that we have to deal with today. "Why do we do things this way?" "The 9/11 Commission said we had to." Case closed.
I've worked for the government and still contract to them. I saw/see a lot of BS in there. The mentality of group think is alive and well there and they don't take too kindly to "out of the box" ideas and to actually sharing information. I fought too many battles with that and after banging my head way too many times, I finally got a concussion and left. :)
So yeah, I've seen both sides of the coin as a gov't employee and Joe Citizen. What's there right now isn't pretty.
Robert
August 19, 2008 2:08 PM
I wrote:
"I don't think it's a bit unreasonable to expect that government to tell me what the rules are so that I can follow those rules."
TSO Dean responded:
"The information is out there, for the most part, it's just not all put into a single encompassing list."
The information that is "out there" is conflicting (and thus inaccurate), incomplete, and vague. We're talking about restricting people's right to travel and associate, here. We need to be specific. We need people to know exactly what they are required to do beyond that which they are required to do in other cirumstances (like 20' ahead or behind the checkpoint) and we need people to know exactly what they are barred from doing beyond that which they are barred from doing in other circumstances. If we can't do that, we shouldn't expect people to follow the rules, and we can't very well punish them for not doing so.
"There are signs at all (or, at least, most - granted I haven't been through all the airpots, but I can't see how this would be different) the checkpoints telling people that they have to take their jackets off, remove metal off their persons, take their shoes off, etc."
Some of those signs are blatently inaccurate. I photographed some inaccurate signs bearing the TSA logo at MCI last year. In fact, I filed a complaint with TSA and received a response from Jeanne Oliver, Associate Director of TSA Office of the Executive Secretariat. She did not indicate that TSA would fix the problem, but did confirm that if a traveler was (at the time; this has since changed) "unwilling or unable to produce a valid form of ID, the traveler [was] required to undergo additional screening at the checkpoint to gain access to the secured area of the airport," and thus that the signs were inaccurate. I wrote about this experience in a comment in reponse to the "Gripes and Grins Part 3" post (in a comment submitted 2008-03-31 15:01 -0700) and again in response to the Why is ID Important for Security?" post (in a comment posted 2008-06-11 15:29 -0700). A story about my experience was run on the front page of the Kansas City Star ("Although airport security tells passengers they must show ID to board planes, they really don't," Scott Canon and Mike Rice, Kansas City Star, April 9, 2008; that paper does not allow free access to their archives, but the story was also run by the Seattle Times: "If truth be told, you don't always need ID for domestic flights", Seattle times, April 14, 2008 and also by the Arizona Daily Star: "You can fly without ID, but a hassle will accompany you", Arizona Daily Star, April 20, 2008).
Dean went on to describe the Huntsville airport, where he works, having nineteen signs, a large television displaying a slide show, signs about how x-rays may damage photographic film and how to avoid such damage, pamphlets about prohibited items at ticket counters, and more signs.
Dean, one big problem here is that none of those is an authoritative source of information. They have been discredited repeatedly. I understand that when rules change, it takes a while to update all the inaccurate information left around, but I suspect the OMB's Agency Information Quality Guidelines require TSA to keep its publications accurate, and this is not a problem that is unique to TSA. Other agencies have figured out how to deal with it.
"most of the information is already out there, and most of the information is also contained on the TSA website -- albeit not in a very functional, easy-to-find manner. You kinda' have to dig around there for it."
I don't care about easy-to-find, and I'm not sure what you meant by "functional". All I'm asking for is a complete and accurate list of rules someone is required to follow at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint in order to avoid having his right to travel restricted, not including the rules/reglations/laws that he is required to follow elsewhere (just the checkpoint-specific ones; those that TSA alone imposes).
"And, by the way, the LGAs are listed on the TSA website as well as the checkpoint signs as being limited to 3.0oz - this is technically accurate. TSOs can exempt items up to 3.4oz without needing justification,"
See, there's a problem. Either the law says I can't pass the checkpoint with more than 3 ounces of liquid without breaking it up into 3oz portions and store them in a one-quart resealable plastic bag or it does not. Am I to believe that the (no offense) lowly TSO is authorized to allow me to break the law? Does the law actually allow for 3.4oz portions? We cannot tell unless we can read the law. Where is the law that we are required to follow? Am I really to believe that the law requires me to do whatever any given TSA TSO demands? That doesn't sound very American.
"so it just kind-of became a de facto limit, though I think the technical, official limit is 3.0oz."
Ha! And you are one of the people charged with enforcing these rules! How in the world are we travelers supposed to know what the rules are if those who are supposed to enforce them -- in particular, one of those people who is very interested in knowing how to do things right, not just some slacker -- doesn't know what they are? Dean, you must realize how ridiculous this is. "Ridiculous" is putting it lightly.
"The TSA traveler's guide states: `While not a sinister item, it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 cash'. Which is tru... kind-of"
Dean, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the law. Surely you know that either it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 cash (which is unlikely, given that armored truck companies have people doing it all the time) or it is not. If it is not illegal, then TSA's Web site is inaccurate; our government has published inaccurate information about the laws we are required to follow. Doesn't that alarm you? At the very least, don't you think it should leave us all skeptical of other information TSA puts on its Web site?
"Was there anything in particular you were wanting to know about, Phil?"
Yes: I want to know the URL or name of government publication that lists 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).
It's so simple: What are the rules you require us to follow? If you point me to something that contains conflicting information or falsehoods like we uncovered in this discussion, then it's not an accurate list of the rules. I've yet to see an accurate list. I challenge anyone reading this to just point me to the rules. That doesn't mean the entire "guidelines for travelers" page, it doesn't mean the entire TSA Web site, it doesn't mean the entire U.S. Government Web, and it doesn't mean the whole Internet -- just a list of the rules TSA imposes on travelers at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint. When I want to know the rules I am required to follow when driving, I can go read the law that created those rules. It may be dense "legalese" but that is the language of policy. Where are TSA policies?
Anyone?
August 19, 2008 2:20 PM
In response to my request for an accurate, complete, and concise list of the rules TSA requires travelers to follow when passing through a U.S. Governement checkpoint at an airport, someone anonymously wrote (sir or madam, please don't take offense; I mean nothing personal by my criticism of your likely-well-intentioned comments):
"Lets try this, you're at the checkpoint, and the sign says, "interfering with screening personel...." etc....these are some of the rules your subject to."
You'll need to define "interfering with screening personel," then. There's no judge to interpret the law for us in this case. Does interference include making small talk? How about walking by in very revealing attire? Asking questions about what the rules are? Protesting the actions of screeners who are clearly not following the rules?
"Lets simplify it:
"1. Don't interfere with the screening process. Don't intimidate TSO's (lets not argue about this now because we all know that some TSO's can be rude).
I addressed that already.
"2. Take your shoes off
"2a. if you're diabetic or have a condition which prevents you from taking your shoes off, you are subect to a shoe swab."
With 2a, 2 ceases to make sense. Either you're required to take your shoes off or not. Also, how can you require me to remove my shoes if I'm not wearing shoes? Maybe what you meant was something like, "2. Unless you are _______ you may not wear shoes through the checkpoint."
"3. If your laptop is not in a checkpoint friendly bag, please take it out and xray it separately."
"3a. If your laptop is xrayed in side a non checkpoint friendly bag it is subject to additional screening."
Again, don't assume that someone has a laptop. Just tell me what the rules are. Are laptops allowed to be carried through? Must they be x-rayed? Must I make any special preparations for the x-ray screening?
"4. Make sure your LGA's are properly packaged and xrayed separately as well.
What is an LGA?
"4a. No weapons, incendiary's or explosives please. Also, fireworks are prohibited as well."
This is a list of rules, not a conversation. "Please" has no place in here. Just tell me what the rules are; don't ask me to do anything.
"5. Be patient with us (again lets not argue this one)"
That's not enforceable. We can't define what patience is in this context or determine whether someone is being patient or not.
"6. Show us your boarding pass and ID please."
Similarly to #4a, you're asking something when you should be stating a fact. Just tell me the rule, and I'll figure out what to do so that I don't break the rule and can go on about my business, please. I'm looking for something like, "Before entering the checkpoint, you must present a valid boarding pass (for that day?) (in your name?) (to whom?) and documentation of your identity (what sort?) (to whom?)"
"7. Show boarding pass again at the mag, your id is no longer necessary."
I don't know what a "mag" is. You need not and should not to list anything that is not necessary, only the things that are necessary. Just tell me what is required of me, please, and I can figure out that everything else is not required of me on my own.
"8. Collect your property and go on your way."
Am I required to collect my property? Must I go on my way immediately?
"I don't think there are many other rules that you need to worry about unless something comes up that causes concern, and in that case its not a rule per se, its something that occurred during the process. Its really that simple."
If there are other rules, I most certainly need to be aware of them so that I can follow them. Something that "comes up and causes concern [to security guards at the checkpoint]" is really of no concern to me as long as I'm following the rules. Out of compassion for fellow people, I'm somewhat concerned about their concerns, but really, I just want to go on about my business without being hassled.
What I am worried about is that we have set up a system by which rules are made up on-the-fly by low-level security personnel, and that we are now restricting people's right to movement within their own country based on the arbitrary judgement of thousands of such personnel as well as by use of blacklists. This is un-American, and we shouldn't stand for it. Bob, Dean, Rachel, and everyone else: You shouldn't be part of it if you can avoid it. I'm sorry if you're in a tough situation, but you're part of the start of something very bad. I hope that your participation is part of plans to change things from the inside.
August 19, 2008 2:48 PM
TSO Tom wrote:
"how about publishing a brochure that would help the passengers understand some of the "rules" that apply at the checkpoint. Let's forget the SOP, how to's and what nots....simply a brochure that explains what is necesarry for the passenger to make it through the checkpoint area problem free."
Thanks for the suggestion to help, but we don't need something to help us understand the rules we are required to follow, we need to see the rules. It's up to us to figure out how to follow them.
Why is it so hard to just show us the rules we're supposed to follow if we want to be able to travel by commercial airline within the country? Is it because no such list of rules exist? Then how are we supposed to know how to comply with those rules?
August 19, 2008 2:58 PM
Hey Blogdad Bob, care to comment on how TSA people damaged 14 airplanes at Chicago ORD?
Is this the highly trained TSA at work?
Just wondering!
August 19, 2008 3:14 PM
@TSO Tom: "For instance it could contain the statement that is shown on the signs at the checkpoint about interfering with intimidating or assaulting screening officers at the checkpoint."
So what charges are brought against screeners when they do the same thing to passengers?
August 19, 2008 3:29 PM
I quoted TSO Tom as having writtena:
"Robert Johnson, I have one question for you, have you actually taken the time to read the lengthy 9/11 comission report?"
I then mistakenly addressed the following question to Robert although I intended to address it to Tom:
Robert, have you read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, by David Ray Griffin? Have you heard that the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission now say their report was incomplete and flawed?
Sorry for the mix-up, Robert and Tom.
Nonetheless, I hope everyone reading this will consider that almost seven years after the destruction of the World Trade Center, we still haven't had a thorough investigation of how and why it happened. Please don't start in with the "conspiracy theorist" nonsense. I don't know who conspired to destroy those buildings, but it wasn't someone acting on his or her own, and thus people conspired to do it. I don't know if that group included Osama Bin Laden, Larry Silverstein or Dick Cheney, but I think finding out who was involved is important.
We've based a lot of bad domestic and foreign policy on our belief in the story we were told within hours of the incident, well before what little investigation we did occurred. I'm tired of hearing "remember 9/11" pounded in from every angle and used as justification for numerous intrusive, expensive, and unconstitutional policies from the new Department of Homeland security. People were so frightened by this horrendous crime that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous than was Communism during the Cold War.
And who benefited? I'd say some terrorist organizations benefited (we're terrorized, and our way of life has changed), and I'd say that those who wanted to and had already prepared plans to start wars in the Middle East benefited, and I'd say that the people behind the USA PATRIOT Act and wanted a reason to enact it, then introduced all 300 pages of it less than a week after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, benefited. All these people who benefited should have been prime suspects in the investigation, but only some of them were. The others were, for the most part, associates of those who conducted the investigation.
We deserve a thorough and truly independent investigation. Those who died deserve it and their survivors deserve it. And tying this back to the subject at hand: What little we do know is not justification for giving up our right to travel without interference from our government and our right to protection from unreasonable search.
TSA: You want to do something about transportation security? Do something about the 3000 people who died... last month in automobile accidents, and the 3000 that died in them the month before, and the month before that.
August 19, 2008 3:53 PM
Bob,
I just want to know the rules so the TSA officials on duty will stop barking at me for doing the wrong thing. Currently, what's "right" at one airport is very "wrong" at another.
For example, at BWI we were yelled at for putting our shoes in a plastic bin. At Boston Logan we were yelled at for not putting our shoes in a plastic bin.
I'm sure you can see how this would get tiresome ....
August 19, 2008 3:56 PM
Dean, can you please share with us the URL of the TSA page that talks about $10,000+ not being "sinister?"
I went to the Traveler's Guide page and then did a search for $10,000. This is what I found:
"Currency Reporting
It is legal to transport any amount of currency or other monetary instruments into or out of the United States. However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign place, or into the United States from any foreign place, you must file a report with U.S. Customs. This report is called the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments, Customs Form 4790. Furthermore, if you receive in the United States, currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time which has been transported, mailed, or shipped to you from any foreign place, you must file a CF-4790. These forms can be obtained at all U.S. ports of entry and departure.
Monetary instruments include:
* U.S. or foreign coins and currency;
* Traveler checks in any form;
* Negotiable instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee, or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
* Incomplete instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) signed, but with they payee’s name omitted; and
* Ssecurities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery. However, the term "monetary instruments" does not include:
o Checks or money orders made payable to the order of a named person which have not been endorsed or which bear restrictive endorsements;
o Warehouse receipts; or
o Bills of lading.
Reporting is required under the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act (PL 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), as amended. Failure to comply can result in civil and criminal penalties and may lead to forfeiture of your monetary instrument(s).
U.S. Customs Service
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Telephone (202) 927-1520 "
No where is the word "sinister" to be found on that page.
The only other results of that search referred to the TSA famous sanctions for breaking its unpublished rules.
Your statement is a perfect example of what Phil and others mean when they say that the TSA website offers conflicting and confusing "information."
Show us the rules, all of them, so we know what we are dealing with when we transit an airport.
August 19, 2008 4:27 PM
Dean wrote:
"And, by the way, the LGAs are listed on the TSA website as well as the checkpoint signs as being limited to 3.0oz - this is technically accurate. TSOs can exempt items up to 3.4oz without needing justification, so it just kind-of became a de facto limit, though I think the technical, official limit is 3.0oz. Any TSOs want to jump in and let me know if that was officially changed, or if that's still the case?"
Let's try this again, my first comment never got posted. 3.4oz went into effect when we picked up Great Britain's liquid ban which is roughly equal to 100ml. To my knowledge 3.4oz was always the limit, for some reason the signs that came out for the passengers was 3oz.
August 19, 2008 4:36 PM
Oh, my god. It's almost enough to make me want to quit writing here.
This is in no particular order, and isn't even addressing everything, but I've had enough for now.
Jim Huggins wrote:
(I'm gonna pick this apart quite a bit, Dean ... mainly because I think it actually illustrates several important points, not because you're worthy of picking on. I appreciate your straight answers to straight questions. Thanks.)
You're welcome, and thanks, and I know - but it's still annoying as hell. :P
Jim Huggins wrote:
So you, as a TSO, don't know with absolute certainty whether the fluids limit is 3.0oz or 3.4oz.
Not here I don't. I'm at the house. If I was at work, I could've looked up the obscure management directives that maybe 10% of the screener corps has ever actually read rather than having a supervisor interpret to them in an in-briefing.
Want to know why the all-encompassing list you want doesn't exist, and can't? Let me give you an example, and it's something I've mentioned before on the Blog:
Strictly speaking, the fluids limit is 0oz.
None.
They're prohibited completely.
Totally. End of story. Liquids and gels and aerosols and pastes are prohibited 100% from taking through a security checkpoint.
However -- and this is assuming that the 3.0 hasn't been taken out and just moved to 3.4 anyway, like I was writing above -- up to 3.0oz is allowed in a bag by exception. We're allowed to grant a further exception up to 3.4oz without justifying it. We're allowed to further exception anything at all up to any size with compelling justification and all screening tools to ensure that it's not a threat.
What are you getting at? The goal is to keep things simple. Passengers don't need to know that liquids and gels are prohibited in their entirety, but that everything is given an exception. That causes confusion. That's why we just say the limit is 3.4oz and move on with life.
Phil wrote:
Am I required to collect my property? Must I go on my way immediately?
Yes, actually. Though we may not say anything if you turn around and wave at your friends and family before turning and meandering off, if you just stand there and don't move and leave all your stuff there on the table, you're making it more difficult for other people to come through because you're a body in the way. Under some supervisors' interpretation, this constitutes as interference with the screening procedures.
Phil wrote:
What is an LGA?
The shorthand written form of liquids, gels, and aerosols. No TSO with a single shred of a single iota of sense is going to verbally say "L.G.A." to a passenger. We normally don't even say it amongst ourselves. It'd be like writing "omg" on the Internet (which just about everyone knows to mean "oh, my god") and then turning around saying "ohh-emm-gee!" in real life. It'd just be stupid.
Jim Huggins wrote:
So what happens when I get to a checkpoint with a lighter, and some TSO says I can't bring it aboard because "the pamphlet says so"?
...I'd actually be willing to bet good money than most TSOs have never even seen one of those pamphlets, and cigarette lighters (in the checkpoint, with the exception of torch lighters; don't even get me started on the asinine business regarding lighters in checked baggage) have been off our prohibited items list (which, believe it or not, is actually shorter than the list on the TSA website. The difference therein is the fact that the website's list goes way in depth with almost anything you could possibly care to bring through the checkpoint that's not an electronic doodad or an article of clothing) for some time now.
Phil wrote:
I don't know what a "mag" is. You need not and should not to list anything that is not necessary, only the things that are necessary.
Mag is shorthand for magnetometer. Strictly speaking, we don't use them anymore - there's some minor, piddling little technical difference between a magnetometer and a walk-through metal detector - but saying "mag" is still easier than saying "walk-through metal detector" in it's entirety.
Telling folks not to show us their IDs again seems more like a courtesy. About 90% of the people that come through Huntsville's checkpoint want to give us their ID with the boarding pass there, too; telling people that don't have to show it lets them put it away where they can't drop it and lose it.
Phil wrote:
..you're asking something when you should be stating a fact
It's called being polite, that whole "saying 'please'" thing. :P
When my wife tells me, "Dean, will you take out the trash, please?" -- do you think there's any actual choice in that regard? :P
Phil wrote:
There's no judge to interpret the law for us in this case.
In the case of interfering with the screening process? Wow. Don't worry. We don't know the definition to that, either. Supervisors wield a great deal of authority when it comes to that, but it's a hammer that's not brought down very often here at Huntsville. To my knowledge, only two people have been escorted out of the airport by TSA's request since Huntsville rolled out in 2002. The alternative to having them escorted out would be to have them arrested and charged with a federal offense, so I'd say we did them a favor.
Phil wrote:
Where are TSA policies?
Listed in our standard operating procedures, and thereafter written in simple terms and put on the TSA website for the public to have to use in preparation of traveling.
Phil wrote:
I hope that your participation is part of plans to change things from the inside.
My participation is all part of this grand-master plan that I have to continue paying my mortgage and not impoverish my family.
Phil wrote:
If it is not illegal, then TSA's Web site is inaccurate
Except that it is illegal in certain scenarios. The page I got it from in the traveler's guide wasn't making a statement about carrying money, it was talking about shoes. The line I quoted was a subtitle under an image.
August 19, 2008 4:41 PM
Dean wrote:
"And, by the way, the LGAs are listed on the TSA website as well as the checkpoint signs as being limited to 3.0oz - this is technically accurate. TSOs can exempt items up to 3.4oz without needing justification, so it just kind-of became a de facto limit, though I think the technical, official limit is 3.0oz. Any TSOs want to jump in and let me know if that was officially changed, or if that's still the case?"
Let's try this again, my first comment never got posted. 3.4oz went into effect when we picked up Great Britain's liquid ban which is roughly equal to 100ml. To my knowledge 3.4oz was always the limit, for some reason the signs that came out for the passengers was 3oz. Everything present on the website says 3oz but if you look at www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/gao_report.pdf
The GAO states that the TSA rule is 3.4oz, so we have a breakdown somewhere.
August 19, 2008 4:43 PM
Dean, thanks for clearing up some of the terminology.
As for being polite, I understand that. However, what the other person attempted to present was not a script that someone who is capable of being polite could read, but a list of rules. Rules cannot be polite impolite; they are simply statements of fact or directions. "Please do suchandsuch" is not a rule, it's a request.
As much as I'd like to please nearly everyone I come into contact with (as we'd all be happier if everyone did so), when I'm stopped by government agents for no reason other than to stop me and all the other honest people in an attempt to find the few criminals, the last thing I'm concerned with is pleasing those agents or fulfilling a request for them. Orders only, please. If I'm not required to do it, I'm not likely to do so, because I just want to get on with my business as quickly as possible. If I'm required to do something, you need to tell me to do it, not ask to do it -- as if I have a choice in the matter. This is not customer service at a place of business, it is a search by government agents. You don't have to be unfriendly, but please don't confuse requests with orders -- it makes things difficult for all of us.
So instead of "please do suchandsuch", the other person probably should have written "you must do suchandsuch" or "you are required to do suchandsuch". Those are rules, and if I'm required to follow them, I will.
But TSA doesn't seem to have a list of the rules we are required to follow at U.S. Government checkpoints in airports, so I have little hope for any of us being able to pass through those checkpoints with confidence that we're following the rules. Hopefully, Congress will soon rein in the Department of Homeland Security.
August 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Dean (bravely) wrote:
Strictly speaking, the fluids limit is 0oz. None. They're prohibited completely. Totally. End of story. Liquids and gels and aerosols and pastes are prohibited 100% from taking through a security checkpoint.
However -- and this is assuming that the 3.0 hasn't been taken out and just moved to 3.4 anyway, like I was writing above -- up to 3.0oz is allowed in a bag by exception.
See, this is what really annoys folks like me.
If the actual rule is that all liquids are banned, but that 3.[0/4] ounces can be passed through as an exception to the rule, this means that I as a passenger am relying on the goodwill of the TSO at the checkpoint to grant me that exception. Any TSO, at any time, could refuse to grant me that exception for any reason --- maybe because I'm acting genuinely suspiciously, or maybe because (s)he doesn't like my ethnicity, or my height, or my Michigan jacket. After all, the rule says, "no liquids at all", and there's nothing that says that the TSO has to allow my exception.
On the other hand, if the rule were to say "3.[0/4] oz is permitted", then I as a passenger have much greater control over the situation. The TSO must by default permit my small liquids to pass, unless the TSO has specific justification to the contrary.
If this really is the rule, then I can understand why no-one has published the real rules ...
August 19, 2008 5:44 PM
Sandra wrote:
No where is the word "sinister" to be found on that page.
Wrong page. ;)
That would be because the page wherein I found that remark wasn't necessarily talking about currency. It was talking about shoes, so the currency thing only got a quick cuff remark.
I'm too lazy to make it a link, so you'll have to copy/paste it in the old-fashioned way:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/why_do_i.shtm
Last sentence, second paragraph. Go ahead and talk about how the TSA has misleading information on their website, now. I'm sure that one's coming in hard and fast. :D
Kathy from Kleveland wrote:
I'm sure you can see how this would get tiresome.
I do. However, that isn't an official TSA rule. The only thing that the official regulations state that must be in a bin are (a) laptops [mostly to protect the laptop itself from damage] and (b) magazines, newspapers, other items of that ilk generally less than an inch thick. Whether the particular airport wants shoes to be in the bins or not is entirely up to them.
For the record, Huntsville prefers the shoes to be directly on the x-ray belt. Shoes in bins by themselves don't weigh enough to push through the lead curtains on our x-ray machines. If there's other stuff in the bin with the shoes to provide ballast, then we don't generally say anything.
Jason wrote:
The GAO states that the TSA rule is 3.4oz, so we have a breakdown somewhere.
There's an absolute shocker.
I'm gonna look it up when I get back to work on Thursday, because I know the original liquid ban was... a total and complete ban. It changed to 3.0oz for, like, three days and then the de facto change to 3.4oz came in.
For the sake of the argument, there's no reason to really care if it's still officially 3.0oz with a 3.4oz exception or just an official 3.4oz except my own personal curiosity at this point.
Either way, the effective, practical, all intents and purposes limit is 3.4oz.
Trollkiller:
Still got the sticks handy? I'll bring the marshmallows this time.
August 19, 2008 7:43 PM
Anonymous said "(What are the chances that the Security Theater playwrights know what "sic" means? Shrug...)"
Most of us are not scholars, but there are some that can indicate the common usage of [sic] is to indicate the inclusion of a misspelled word as it was utilized in a direct quotation (meaning the initial quote was a misspelling). Just to let you know, personal attacks belittle the person making them, use facts, serious questions, and propose WORKABLE solutions and you will get much further in generating constructive dialogue. I think that the introduction of these bags will help travellers with the screening procedures, and cut down on the time getting through the checkpoint. Admittedly, this will only give you a couple of minutes less time, but it is at leat a step in the right direction, especially for frequent travellers.
August 19, 2008 7:43 PM
Gunner said "It is so easy to post under anonymous and attack people. Internet cowardice at its best. Get an ID and have some accountability. Rachel and Dean have the cajones to identify themselves."
I have an ID, and I will be happy to instruct you that your tactics are not professional in the least. I will tell you that personal attacks and insults are a shallow way to make your point. I have seen others post on here that this was a site for giving the public a forum to try and be part of the process to make things better. If you have a specific problem, name it, present a WORKABLE solution *, and present facts to back your presentations. I know, I know, I know - before you even start, TSA has done a fairly terrible job of communicating with the public. Changes come so fast to the SOP that even WE can't keep up with them. There is a push in the organization to improve communications across the board, but with any organization this large communication will always be our number one problem. The inconsistencies you encounter at the checkpoints daily drives me to drink because I think it increases the stress on the passengers and the TSO's. That being said, the rules are there, yes they change, but there are the rules and they must be followed. I disagree with many of them, but I agree with many of them as well. I hope you can preseent more cogent arguments in the future and refrain from nthe useless personal attacks, as they do nothing to further the betterment of the process. Was that direct enough for you?
August 19, 2008 7:59 PM
TSO Jason,
I commented several times on the inconsistencies of TSA's website. The liquid 3.0oz vs 3.4oz isn't the only thing that's inconsistent across that site. Good proofreading and editing would have taken care of that a long time ago - if someone cared at TSA.
August 19, 2008 8:32 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
So you, as a TSO, don't know with absolute certainty whether the fluids limit is 3.0oz or 3.4oz.
Not here I don't. I'm at the house. If I was at work, I could've looked up the obscure management directives that maybe 10% of the screener corps has ever actually read rather than having a supervisor interpret to them in an in-briefing.
Want to know why the all-encompassing list you want doesn't exist, and can't? Let me give you an example, and it's something I've mentioned before on the Blog:
***********************************
Okay, there seems to be confusion on the limit of liquids/gels/aerosols being 3 oz or 3.4 oz. Lets clear this up. On August 10, 2006 all liquids were banned, period. Shortly thereafter, it was determined that "travel sized" items, which at the time were defined as 3.0 oz or less in size were permitted. Shortly thereafter again (approximately September of 2006) that limit was raised to 3.4 oz to correspond with our European counterparts. That said, the signs were listed as 3 oz and were never updated. In addition to the size restriction, it was determined that to keep these items together, and unclutter the carry on bags during xray screening, that these items must be packed in a 1 quart sized plastic zip lock bag and xrayed separately. Recently, TSO's have been given the discretion to allow items that are within the size limit, but not a zip lock bag, if the TSO determines that the items would fit into such a bag without bulging, breaking, etc. So, the limit has indeed changed, and the requirements for these items have also changed, in that TSO's are now being given more "discretion" in the area of allowing these items. I hope this info helps.
August 19, 2008 8:39 PM
So how am I really supposed to know what kind of bag to get? Your cartoon 'examples' just don't make the cut. Can you just publish a list of what brands/models meet your criteria? Not that I really want to spend my already overtaxed hard-earned money on a new bag when the one I have already meets my needs.
August 19, 2008 11:35 PM
For instance it could contain the statement that is shown on the signs at the checkpoint about interfering with intimidating or assaulting screening officers at the checkpoint.
So when some TSA starts screaming "do you want to fly today" and I reply "do you want to live to get to your car today?" I'm interfering, but he is just laying his life on the line for me.
Just wanted to be sure.
August 19, 2008 11:52 PM
hsvtso dean writes:
There are signs at all (or, at least, most - granted I haven't been through all the airpots, but I can't see how this would be different) the checkpoints telling people that they have to take their jackets off, remove metal off their persons, take their shoes off, etc. Here at Huntsville we have nineteen signs total and a great big flat-panel TV over the arch in front of the security checkpoint with all the information on a slideshow.
The problem is that the signage is inconsistent or missing. Let me give you two quick stories from my one day trip yesterday from PHX to SNA.
1. While waiting in line at the checkpoint in Terminal 4 in PHX, we were treated to a nice little snit from the TSO reading the x-ray machine. He blew his top and snapped at us saying, "BINS MUST BE 4" INCHES APART!" and then pulled a bin out of the machine and slid it back onto the rollers.
And we were supposed to know that how? There weren't any signs and there certainly weren't any guides on the conveyor belt in 4" inch increments. I would love to know how I or anyone else was supposed to know the 4" Rule. Clearly, Cranky TSO expected we should have known it, otherwise, he wouldn't have been such a jerk.
2) When I went through the metal detector at PHX, I was only expected to show my boarding pass. When I went through the metal detector at SNA, I was told by the TSO on the other side to have my boarding pass AND ID in my hand when I walked through.
So, who is right? PHX or SNA? It doesn't matter. I just want consistency and I am not getting it, and that isn't my fault. PHX and SNA can duke it out for all I care. I just want the rules to be identical for every single airport in this country and an workforce that is willing to follow them.
The more I thought about what your specific question is, the more it occurred to me that most of the information is already out there, and most of the information is also contained on the TSA website -- albeit not in a very functional, easy-to-find manner. You kinda' have to dig around there for it.
First of all, not everyone has computer access nor should there be a requirement that people are expected to head to their local library or Kinko's to get Internet access to poke around the TSA website hoping to God they find all the rules.
Second, can you imagine how long a meglomart would last operating the same way? You walk into the big box store and ask an employee where the safety pins are. He or she looks up at you and says, "Well, they're in the store somewhere. You just kind of have to dig around for them."
August 19, 2008 11:53 PM
Not related to this topic, but I didn't see a section for general comments...
I think given the TSA's mission to promote aviation security, I would like to see a response to the ABC news article that one of your inspectors damaged NINE planes at KORD (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5613502&page=1).
As a pilot, I find this incident completely unacceptable and I don't think I'm alone when I say I don't want the TSA anywhere near aircraft and your plan to include GA will just make things worse (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-08-10-charter-planes_N.htm).
Thank you,
-Andrew
August 20, 2008 6:30 AM
TSA is now placing airline pilots on its no-fly list and breaking airplanes.
Gee, I feel safer.
August 20, 2008 7:20 AM
Phil wrote:
Either the law says I can't pass the checkpoint with more than 3 ounces of liquid without breaking it up into 3oz portions and store them in a one-quart resealable plastic bag or it does not. Am I to believe that the (no offense) lowly TSO is authorized to allow me to break the law? Does the law actually allow for 3.4oz portions? We cannot tell unless we can read the law. Where is the law that we are required to follow?
This is not a criticism at all, Phil, as I admire and applaud your tenacity in challenging the TSA and individual posters on the accuracy of their writings.
However, I think you are mixing up "rules" and "laws." There are rules regarding the amounts of liquids one can bring on board a plane, but there are no laws as such - AFAIK.
August 20, 2008 9:52 AM
I am sitting in Richmond airport (RIC) having just gone through security. Two things happened that are new to me (and I'm an experienced traveler). First, as I gave my boarding pass and ID to the document checker, word spread through the TSOs that they were on "stand down". Noone was allowed to enter or leave the secure area. I asked why this happened and the TSO didn't know. What causes something like this?
Second, after I went through the metal detector, I was instructed to push "the red button" on a new machine. No explanation was given. After I pushed it, the screen flashed green and said "Standard Screening". I am guessing this is some kind of system that randomly chooses people for secondary screening? Why are these things rolled out with no warning or explanation? My first thought was that I was having to give my fingerprint to get through security. It's not hard to imagine that being next...
August 20, 2008 10:44 AM
I had meant to post this in this thread. Mods feel free to delete in in the one Francine started.
---------
Hey guys, is this your way of keeping us safe?
TSA Snafu Grounds Nine Planes at O'Hare Field
I particularly like these quotes:
The TSA agent, as part of spot inspection of aircraft security, climbed onto the parked aircraft using control sensors mounted on the fuselage as handholds, according to a TSA official in Chicago, Elio Montenegro.
"Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the aircraft that were on the tarmac," Montenegro told ABCNews.com.
So it's routine procedure to use plane instruments and break them?
and
Another pilot wrote the TSA agents, "are now doing things to our aircraft that may put our lives, and the lives of our passengers at risk."
Say it isn't so! TSA is there for our SAFETY! :rolleyes:
and
Another airline, Mesa Air Group, told its employees earlier this month that "48 percent of all TSA investigations involving Mesa Air Group involve a failure to maintain area/aircraft security."
Mesa said it was imposing a "zero-tolerance" policy for such violations, threatening employees with dismissal.
I think it's really the pot calling the kettle black when TSA tells an airline they're failing security checks.
If Mesa can have a zero tolerance policy for such things and holds their employees accountable, why can't or won't TSA?
August 20, 2008 10:54 AM
Quote from TSO Jason: "The GAO states that the TSA rule is 3.4oz, so we have a breakdown somewhere."
Just one breakdown?
August 20, 2008 10:55 AM
Sandra wrote:
"Dean, can you please share with us the URL of the TSA page that talks about $10,000+ not being "sinister?"
It's located at:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/travelers/why_do_i.shtm
August 20, 2008 12:14 PM
To Sandra who asked:
"Dean, can you please share with us the URL of the TSA page that talks about $10,000+ not being "sinister?"
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/why_do_i.shtm
BTW, which is totally false! So I challenge the TSA to show us the law, or do the right thing and fix the webpage.
August 20, 2008 2:04 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
"If [as TSO Dean stated] the actual rule is that all liquids are banned, but that 3.[0/4] ounces can be passed through as an exception to the rule, this means that I as a passenger am relying on the goodwill of the TSO at the checkpoint to grant me that exception."
Precisely, Jim. Furthermore, this means that we have a system that allows any one of thousands of TSA airport security guards to authorize passengers to disregard certain rules and carry banned items onto a flight.
Feel safer yet?
TSA: Why don't you just make a rule that says no one can pass your checkpoints, then authorize checkpoint agents to bend the rules as they please? You could end all of this pressure to tell us what the rules are if you simply made a rule that says we cannot fly, then ignored it. Isn't that what you're doing (on a smaller scale, of course) with the liquid ban?
If your rules said that we can't fly, then your people could just make up any reason they find appropriate to stop whomever they like from traveling.
Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
August 20, 2008 4:19 PM
Sandra quoted my earlier comment:
"Either the law says I can't pass the checkpoint with more than 3 ounces of liquid without breaking it up into 3oz portions and store them in a one-quart resealable plastic bag or it does not. Am I to believe that the (no offense) lowly TSO is authorized to allow me to break the law? Does the law actually allow for 3.4oz portions? We cannot tell unless we can read the law. Where is the law that we are required to follow? Am I really to believe that the law requires me to do whatever any given TSA TSO demands? That doesn't sound very American."
Sandra then wrote:
"I think you are mixing up "rules" and "laws." There are rules regarding the amounts of liquids one can bring on board a plane, but there are no laws as such - AFAIK."
Thanks for bringing that up, Sandra. I'm confused about it as well.
What, if any, of what the TSA demands of us as we attempt to walk past government checkpoints in airports, are we required by law to do? I've been (mostly) using the word "rule" because it's unclear to me what's a law and what's just bullying on the part of some people dressed up to look like police officers.
For now, what I really want to know is what the TSA requires us to do in order to avoid having our freedom of movement restricted by them. I'm not ready to discuss whether they have the authority to enforce these rules (though I suspect that they do). Many people just go along with whatever happens to come out of the mouth of whatever security guard is standing there at the checkpoint, then whine, "just follow the rules, and you'll be fine" when others question TSA practices, yet it seems there's no list of rules for us to follow.
I simply can't believe that I am required by law to follow arbitrary orders from some low-level security guard at an American airport. That's not the way things work in the United States. We fought a revolutionary war to break away from an oppressive government, and did a pretty good job of putting together a new form of government that should avoid such arbitrary rules. Here, we have rule of law, not rule of men.
If TSA can't show me the law/rule that says I have to split my liquids into 3.4 ounce portions and combine those smaller containers in a one-quart resealable bag, why should I believe them? They are not legislators. They do not issue executive orders. I'm not expected to take other people's word for what the law is. It's an insult to all that have worked and fought to make this nation what it is to simply lay down and let this abuse of power happen without so much as questioning it. Questioning authority is the patriotic thing to do, and I'm a bit of a patriot.
August 20, 2008 7:29 PM
If the actual rule is that all liquids are banned, but that 3.[0/4] ounces can be passed through as an exception to the rule, this means that I as a passenger am relying on the goodwill of the TSO at the checkpoint to grant me that exception. Any TSO, at any time, could refuse to grant me that exception for any reason --- maybe because I'm acting genuinely suspiciously, or maybe because (s)he doesn't like my ethnicity, or my height, or my Michigan jacket. After all, the rule says, "no liquids at all", and there's nothing that says that the TSO has to allow my exception.
***********************************
The "rule" does not currently say "no liquids at all". Sorry to disappoint the TSO who made that statement, but I'm starting to understand the inconsistencies that are being spoken of. The rule says, 3.4 oz or less (container size) in a 1 quart sized clear sealed zip lock bag. Period. We are granted acceptions to the bag rule, IF the items in question would fit into such a bag. Now some TSO's use the ability to make acceptions, and others do not...I personally have had fellow TSO's disallow such items, when I would have allowed them. It truly is up to the discretion of the TSO, unfortunately there is no real guidance on how to apply such discretion, so you truly are at the mercy of a TSO's discretion. Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly, other than that, if it fits inside a zip lock bag, even though you may not have one, I'm letting it go.
August 20, 2008 8:13 PM
Phil said...
TSO Tom wrote:
"how about publishing a brochure that would help the passengers understand some of the "rules" that apply at the checkpoint. Let's forget the SOP, how to's and what nots....simply a brochure that explains what is necesarry for the passenger to make it through the checkpoint area problem free."
Thanks for the suggestion to help, but we don't need something to help us understand the rules we are required to follow, we need to see the rules. It's up to us to figure out how to follow them.
Why is it so hard to just show us the rules we're supposed to follow if we want to be able to travel by commercial airline within the country? Is it because no such list of rules exist? Then how are we supposed to know how to comply with those rules?
August 19, 2008 2:58 PM
***********************************
Phil;
perhaps you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I'm talking about a list of the rules, with side note tips on what they mean, where they are derived from, and how best to navigate through the checkpoint. Obviously some people would be able to figure out how best to follow them, and others may not, so an "understanding" of the rules, or explanation of the rationale for the rules would make perfect sense. Believe it or not folks, the frontline people such as myself want this as much as you do...it makes MY job easier!
August 20, 2008 8:18 PM
Are the new laptop bag criteria and procedures specific to laptops only or do they also apply other "large electronic" devices such as portable DVD players which currently must be removed from bags for screening? In other words if I put a DVD player in a Checkpoint Friendly bag will that be ok under the new procedures or not? If it will be ok, have TSOs been made aware of this?
August 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly, other than that, if it fits inside a zip lock bag, even though you may not have one, I'm letting it go.
Wouldn't this type of behavoir be considered retaliatory?
Didn't think you guys did such!
Now you have made it clear for all, TSO's do punish and abuse travelers without cause or authority.
I once heard that its a good idea to stop digging when the hole was deep enough.
August 20, 2008 11:26 PM
An anonymous screener wrote:
Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly, other than that, if it fits inside a zip lock bag, even though you may not have one, I'm letting it go.
So you would retaliate against a passenger? The TSA tells us that they do not allow retaliation. However, when screeners are allowed to use their "discretion", then that "discretion" is all too often turned into retaliation.
August 21, 2008 9:14 AM
Anonymous wrote:
The "rule" does not currently say "no liquids at all". Sorry to disappoint the TSO who made that statement
Why should I be disappointed when you proved my point entirely? :P
As I said, it's something that the vast bulk and majority of screening personnel probably don't know about. The SOP does the same thing that the publically-released guidelines do - it boils the stuff down. Read the directives from TSA instead, upon which the SOP is based (and in an easier-to-read format!), if your management gives you access to them. It's quite clear that there is a total and complete liquids prohibition, and anything allowed through is done by exception.
Jim Huggins wrote:
...means that I as a passenger am relying on the goodwill of the TSO at the checkpoint to grant me that exception. Any TSO, at any time, could refuse to grant me that exception for any reason...
Technically? I don't think so.
The 3.4oz thing is an exception made to the rule, but off-hand I don't think it's one that we're allowed to not give, kind of like the rule pertaining to any kind of liquid or gel for medicinal use - also an exception, also one that we have to allow for.
If you ever run across a TSO that's feeling all full of themselves on it (which, as I've pointed out, likely isn't to happen given that 99.9% of the workforce [just an estimate on my part, there] isn't even aware of what the technicalities of the rules themselves are. I am one of three people at HSV, that I know of, with a functional understanding of it - one of the others is our training coordinator, the other is a supervisor) just ask to speak with a supervisor. I can't imagine any supervisor worth their salt would back the TSO on this.
Especially if it's something as petty as:
Anonymous wrote:
Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly
And yes, Sandra, it sounds like that to me, too.
Why then, you may ask, if it's an exception that we have to allow, is the official, technical rule not just 3.4oz? ...Well, it'd be simpler, true, and far easier. But - show of hands, please - since when has TSA ever taken the simple road to any given approach? :D
All told, Jim, it's still not something you'll have to worry about, based only on the fact that the in-depth technicalities of the liquids rule has got about as much nationwide celebrity status among the screener corps as my pet cat does.
"a" wrote:
In other words if I put a DVD player in a Checkpoint Friendly bag will that be ok under the new procedures or not?
From what I understand, no it will not. Anything else besides a laptop (even if they're in the checkpoint-friendly laptop bags) still has to come out of the bag, including DVD players and CPAP machines and other large electronic items of that nature.
August 21, 2008 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...
Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly, other than that, if it fits inside a zip lock bag, even though you may not have one, I'm letting it go.
Wouldn't this type of behavoir be considered retaliatory?
Didn't think you guys did such!
Now you have made it clear for all, TSO's do punish and abuse travelers without cause or authority.
I once heard that its a good idea to stop digging when the hole was deep enough.
August 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Sandra said...
An anonymous screener wrote:
Times when I would not allow items to go would be if the passenger got out of hand or unruly, other than that, if it fits inside a zip lock bag, even though you may not have one, I'm letting it go.
So you would retaliate against a passenger? The TSA tells us that they do not allow retaliation. However, when screeners are allowed to use their "discretion", then that "discretion" is all too often turned into retaliation.
August 21, 2008 9:14 AM
***********************************
I said nothing about retaliation...absolutely nothing. I said, I'm willing to work with the passenger to ensure that items that do not present a danger to the flight crew or other passengers are permitted into the sterile area. If a passenger immediately gets defensive and out of control with me, why should I allow that to happen?
So in your logic, I'm supposed to say, I'm very sorry sir/ma'am....I won't search your bag again, please have a nice day. After that passenger has just caused a scene on the checkpoint in front of other passengers? I think not. If you can't remain calm, and talk to me like a human being, then I'm not going to give you the courtesy of the time of day. Its that simple. Call it what you want, I call it doing my job.
August 21, 2008 11:25 AM
Quote from Sandra:"So you would retaliate against a passenger? The TSA tells us that they do not allow retaliation. However, when screeners are allowed to use their "discretion", then that "discretion" is all too often turned into retaliation."
Don't you know Sandra? Deodorant and shampoo are not a threat in the hands of a happy person. However, an unhappy person could use them to bring down a plane, so they can't be allowed thru.
Robert
August 21, 2008 2:42 PM
Heh: "Have to take off my shoes?
We can't see inside your shoes when they're on your feet. But our x-ray machines can get a good look when you take your shoes off.
We see 2 million shoes a day so it is easy to tell when they have been tampered. Here is an example from Jacksonville, Florida of $40,000 artfully concealed in the sole of an athletic shoe. While not a sinister item, it is illegal to carry more than $10,000 cash." -- from http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/why_do_i.shtm
Wrong.
It is illegal to carry more than $10,000 dollars through customs without declaring it: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/money.xml.
It isn't (yet) illegal to carry cash within our borders, TSA just acts like it is.
August 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Robert Johnson wrote:
"Just one breakdown?"
I don't want to develop carpal tunnel listing all the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
August 21, 2008 4:44 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "It isn't (yet) illegal to carry cash within our borders, TSA just acts like it is."
Just another way to try to make a Big Catch®.
Robert
August 22, 2008 10:36 AM
Okay, I'm officially confused about this posting. Our SOP specifically tells us that it is NOT illegal to carry large sums of cash within US borders. The only reason I can see why the incident in question would have been illegal is the "artful concealment of the cash in the shoes".
August 22, 2008 10:47 AM
anonymous said: "The "rule" does not currently say "no liquids at all". Sorry to disappoint the TSO who made that statement, but I'm starting to understand the inconsistencies that are being spoken of. The rule says, 3.4 oz or less (container size) in a 1 quart sized clear sealed zip lock bag. Period."
**************************
You may want to check that "rule" again. I believe that it permits 1liter bags, which are larger than 1quart.
August 22, 2008 12:58 PM
IAH Flyer wrote:
You may want to check that "rule" again. I believe that it permits 1liter bags, which are larger than 1quart.
You would be correct, the 3-1-1 exemptions do allow the use of a liter-sized bag.
A liter is very close to, but yes slightly larger than, a quart. In terms of pure fluid ounce volume capacity, a liter holds 33.8 fl.oz, a quart holds 32. Or, in metrics, 1000ml as opposed to 946ml (via simple metric/english conversion tables).
Strictly speaking, 100ml can be more than 3.4oz (namely, 3.5oz that I've seen at the checkpoint) as well.
I think it was just the fact that, generally, we're here in America and use the english system as opposed to the metric (and, therefore, the most commonly-thought of thing for us yanks on this side of the pond is "3.4oz" and "quart"), but the two are close enough for it to almost be negligable, so the TSA allows it for our international friends visiting from abroad (who would, instead, think in terms of "100ml" and "liter" -- or "litre" :D )
And - wow. The EoS folks are seriously cracking down on comment posting, I see. Two more of mine seem to have hit the delete-o-meter, but I'll give it a few more days before my feelings get hurt over it.
August 23, 2008 11:09 AM
"How many times has your laptop been searched. . . it's pretty rare."
Ummmmm, no, it's not rare, and my laptop has been searched EVERY SINGLE TIME I've flown since these ridiculous regulations have gone into place. It's utterly ridiculous to say it's a "rare" thing to have a laptop searched - it's just part of the screening process as far as I'm concerned. The claims on this blog that the screening process is standardized are just absurd.
Now we have ANOTHER product to buy to try to get us through security lines a little quicker. First it's tiny, 3.2 oz bottles, now it's laptop cases. Is this some kind of weird market conspiracy? Does a top TSA official hold stock in a travel gear company? It would not surprise me in the slightest.
Happy passengers make bad guys stand out? Are you JOKING?? Or is this another of TSA's super awesome secret methods for catching the "bad guys" - because everyone knows all "bad guys" scowl constantly and are grouchy to everyone.
August 23, 2008 1:43 PM
Quote from Anonymous:
So in your logic, I'm supposed to say, I'm very sorry sir/ma'am....I won't search your bag again, please have a nice day. After that passenger has just caused a scene on the checkpoint in front of other passengers? I think not. If you can't remain calm, and talk to me like a human being, then I'm not going to give you the courtesy of the time of day. Its that simple. Call it what you want, I call it doing my job.
Yes, as unfortunate as it is, you should still allow NON-prohibited items through the checkpoint.
Have you ever seen videos of LEO getting screamed at and continue to remain calm? That's called being professional under ALL circumstances.
Can you direct me to the TSA policy that allows you to prohibit items from one person while allowing the same item by another?
If that is your job, you are most certainly in the WRONG profession.
Like the other comment said, "quit digging if the hole is deep enough"
August 23, 2008 2:02 PM
HSVTSO Dean wrote (a long ways back):
Strictly speaking, the fluids limit is 0oz. None. They're prohibited completely.
In response, an anonymous blogger wrote:
The rule says, 3.4 oz or less (container size) in a 1 quart sized clear sealed zip lock bag. Period.
And in response to that, IAH Flyer wrote:
You may want to check that "rule" again. I believe that it permits 1liter bags, which are larger than 1quart.
I would point out, of course, that TSA's own webpages contradict all three statements above ... 3.0oz (not 0.0 or 3.4), and a one quart bag (not a one liter bag).
So ... I've got four different statements of what the rule is (Dean, Anonymous, IAH Flyer, and the TSA website). Which one (if any) is the actual rule to follow? And how do we know which one is the actual rule to follow?
I hate to steal Phil's line, but, you know, if we all had access to a single authoritative source of all the rules and regulations that passengers must follow at a checkpoint, we could resolve this question much more easily ...
August 23, 2008 6:25 PM
IAH FLyer said...
anonymous said: "The "rule" does not currently say "no liquids at all". Sorry to disappoint the TSO who made that statement, but I'm starting to understand the inconsistencies that are being spoken of. The rule says, 3.4 oz or less (container size) in a 1 quart sized clear sealed zip lock bag. Period."
**************************
You may want to check that "rule" again. I believe that it permits 1liter bags, which are larger than 1quart.
***********************************
I'm not exactly sure of the litre equivelant of the quart sized bag, but it clearly states 1 quart sized bag. That's not what is in dispute here though, its the 3.0 v 3.4 oz that is in question, and that is also clearly 3.4 oz.
August 23, 2008 10:27 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
"I've got four different statements of what the rule is (Dean, Anonymous, IAH Flyer, and the TSA website). Which one (if any) is the actual rule to follow? And how do we know which one is the actual rule to follow?
"I hate to steal Phil's line, but, you know, if we all had access to a single authoritative source of all the rules and regulations that passengers must follow at a checkpoint, we could resolve this question much more easily ..."
Please -- steal my line! Or if you have the time and inclination, state the same idea in your own words. Everyone who posts comments here: please, I beg of you: until we get an answer, include in each of your comments something to the effect of:
Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
And let's make it clear that we're 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 the entire TSA "guidelines for travelers" page, the entire TSA Web site, 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.
We don't want tips, hints, clues, or guidelines; we want to know what specifically is required of us, written in the language of the law.
Can't someone at TSA point us to a list of all the rules we are required to follow if we want to travel within the United States without restriction from our government? How can we be expected to follow the rules if we cannot read them? Are we expected to simply guess what is required of us based on all the often-inconsistent and clearly-incomplete information we are able to gather from anonymous tipsters, TSA press releases, and out-of-date TSA Web pages, then wait for some security guard to tell us whether we guessed correctly or not?
August 25, 2008 1:40 PM
See page 26, 27, and 28 of http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07634.pdf which shows that as of November 21, 2006 the liquid/gel/aerosol limit was changed to as many 3.4 oz. (100mL) containers as would fit in a 1 quart zip seal plastic bag if you want an actual, official government document with the answer as to what is allowed.
Now if TSA could only change their site and signs to comply with the rules in effect for nearly two years we would all be better off.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
August 25, 2008 2:28 PM
Tomas wrote:
"See page 26, 27, and 28 of [GAO report number GAO-07-634, released May 7, 2007, entitled 'Aviation Security: Risk, Experience, and Customer Concerns Drive Changes to Airline Passenger Screening Procedures, but Evaluation and Documentation of Proposed Changes Could Be Improved' (available as PDF and as plain text)] which shows that as of November 21, 2006 the liquid/gel/aerosol limit was changed to as many 3.4 oz. (100mL) containers as would fit in a 1 quart zip seal plastic bag if you want an actual, official government document with the answer as to what is allowed."
Tomas: Thanks for digging that up, but that's only an answer that was accurate as of several years ago. How do you suppose we can be sure that the information is still accurate? Must we scan through every press release, blog posting, and anonymous TSO comment in search of new information that supercedes the old information?
TSA: Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
August 25, 2008 5:39 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
I would point out, of course, that TSA's own webpages contradict all three statements above ... 3.0oz (not 0.0 or 3.4), and a one quart bag (not a one liter bag).
This is mostly written for the Anonymous TSO who is apparently unfamiliar with the way TSA creates policy, but it's information that'll answer that one, too. With the exception of the 3.0oz thing - I checked the other day at work. Jason was correct, it's officially been moved up to 3.4oz, and the website is presently out of date. I'll also not mention the liter/quart thing either, since I've already written a comment detailing that in this thread.
And now, on to the meat of what I had to write about:
Most TSO's don't know about the 0.0oz thing. Mr. Anonymous and, to a lesser extent, Jason have proven my point on that topic.
Here's the deal with that, spelled out with emphasis on very key phrases.
August of 2006, the liquids ban goes into effect. 100% of all liquids are now prohibited. That is the rule.
A week or three later, TSA releases the 3.1.1 exception to the liquid prohibition. At the same time, TSA creates more exceptions to the rule in regard to medicinal items of a liquid or gel nature.
The liquid prohibition is never rescinded, superseded, or replaced, and does not expire.
Ergo, the rule is all liquids are prohibited. The exception is 3.4oz.
The end result, past all the complicated stuff bottom line? If your liquids and gels are compliant with the 3-1-1 exception to the liquid prohibition rule, then they're allowed to go through the checkpoint. This is standard operating procedure, so it's not something an individual TSO can (or should) deny to a passenger.
The 3-1-1 exception is that the liquids/gels/aerosols/pastes/creams/et cetera are no larger than 3.4oz/100ml, and are inside a quart/liter-sized bag to limit the total amount.
Does that help clear it up, Mr. Anonymous? :P
August 25, 2008 9:40 PM
Phil said:
TSA: Where has TSA published 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). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
***********************************
Phil, I admire your tenacity in challenging TSA to provide the location of such a list. The problem is that most of the rules are derived directly from our Operating Procedures. Now I know you're not asking for access to our operating procedures but to extract the rules from the procedures would be an enormous job, and obviously one that TSA is not willing to do. I have suggested on this blog, a brochure of the rules that are imposed on travelers. This brochure should be made available at the document checker area, and inside the checkpoint area so passengers such as Phil know exactly what to expect when they go through security. Whether or not TSA admin will implement such a brochure, I can't say...but the suggestion is out there guys, Phil has asked this same question many times over, I think he at the very least deserves an answer one way or the other. Come on guys, pony up.
August 26, 2008 8:54 PM
While I know this post was originally about the laptop bags (which I hope will be a timesaver now) I have to agree with the other posters about TSA sharing a published list of the rules and regulations. And it would be really nice if they were consistently enforced in each airport.
August 26, 2008 10:24 PM
HSVTSO Dean explained TSA rules and exceptions regarding passengers carrying liquids through a U.S. Government airport checkpoint.
Dean, I appreciate you trying to clear this up. In my mind, if TSA once had a policy that we may not carry any liquids (other than those in our bodies) through their checkpoints, and TSA now has a policy that liquids may be carried through the checkpoint under certain circumstances, then clearly the policy has changed. You can call it a rule and an exception, or you can call it a new rule that replaced the old; it's all the same thing.
TSA, this is all very confusing. In order to make sure that we travelers understand the rules you require us to follow in order to avoid having our freedom of movement restricted by your employees, please tell me where TSA has published 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 specifically at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
Understand that I am not asking to see your operating procedures, or for tips, hints, clues, or guidelines, but the rules you require us to follow. We simply cannot be expected to follow your rules if you will not show them to us.
August 27, 2008 2:19 PM
Phil wrote:
Dean, I appreciate you trying to clear this up.
/salute
Phil wrote:
In my mind [...] it's all the same thing.
You'd think that. And you would be correct from the standpoint of common sense. But this is the TSA we're talking about, remember? :)
August 27, 2008 5:23 PM
Bob,
This policy has generated quite a bit of discussion in CNET's "Buzz out Loud" podcast as well as Leo Laporte's "This Week in Tech." Leo announced to his audience that you have a standing invitation to come on "This Week in Tech." I think you'll find that it's an effective way to reach an balanced, tech-savvy audience to describe the policy and what it means for travelers. I'd take him up on the offer!
September 1, 2008 7:40 PM
TSO Tom wrote:
"The problem is that most of the rules [that TSA requires people to follow in order to avoid having their freedom of movement restricted by TSA agents] are derived directly from our Operating Procedures."
Tom, that just doesn't make sense to me. Aren't your TSO operating procedures just a description of how you and your colleagues should go about enforcing the rules that we passengers are required by your agency to follow when we are at your checkpoint? How could those procedures have been developed without first having a list of rules that TSO's are supposed to enforce?
How can passengers possibly know if they are following the rules they are required by TSA to follow if those passengers are not allowed to see the rules? Do you really expect us to simply guess what is required of us based on all the often-inconsistent and clearly-incomplete information we are able to gather from anonymous tipsters, TSA press releases, and out-of-date TSA Web pages, then wait for some security guard at the checkpoint to tell us whether we guessed correctly or not? How can we be sure if he knows the rules and is not simply making them up on-the-fly?
September 3, 2008 10:37 AM
Phil said...
TSO Tom wrote:
"The problem is that most of the rules [that TSA requires people to follow in order to avoid having their freedom of movement restricted by TSA agents] are derived directly from our Operating Procedures."
Tom, that just doesn't make sense to me. Aren't your TSO operating procedures just a description of how you and your colleagues should go about enforcing the rules that we passengers are required by your agency to follow when we are at your checkpoint? How could those procedures have been developed without first having a list of rules that TSO's are supposed to enforce?
How can passengers possibly know if they are following the rules they are required by TSA to follow if those passengers are not allowed to see the rules? Do you really expect us to simply guess what is required of us based on all the often-inconsistent and clearly-incomplete information we are able to gather from anonymous tipsters, TSA press releases, and out-of-date TSA Web pages, then wait for some security guard at the checkpoint to tell us whether we guessed correctly or not? How can we be sure if he knows the rules and is not simply making them up on-the-fly?
***********************************
Phil;
first off, let me reiterate that I agree with you that a list of rules needs to be made available. However, I don't have a hard copy of such a list. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and tell you to contact TSA directly and make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for the list of rules that passengers are required to abide by. Such requests are generally granted, and TSA like any other federal agency has a policy in place for gathering such requested information. Unfortunately Phil, the powers that be have chosen not to answer you in this forum, so FOIA is the way to go. Let me know how you make out.
September 3, 2008 4:43 PM
TSO Tom writes, in response to Phil's usual request for a list of passenger rules ...
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and tell you to contact TSA directly and make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for the list of rules that passengers are required to abide by. Such requests are generally granted, and TSA like any other federal agency has a policy in place for gathering such requested information.
1. I think one of the points that Phil is trying to raise is that, currently, it appears that such a list doesn't exist. Which by itself is a major problem. It's not fair, or just, to subject passengers to a set of rules posted in different places (if at all), many of which may be contradictory.
2. A FOIA request might be able to generate such a list. However, if that's the only way to find the list of rules that a common passenger is expected to follow, it's particularly sad. I shouldn't have to file a FOIA request to know how to get on a commercial aircraft without causing an incident.
September 4, 2008 5:10 PM
Jim Huggins said...
TSO Tom writes, in response to Phil's usual request for a list of passenger rules ...
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and tell you to contact TSA directly and make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for the list of rules that passengers are required to abide by. Such requests are generally granted, and TSA like any other federal agency has a policy in place for gathering such requested information.
1. I think one of the points that Phil is trying to raise is that, currently, it appears that such a list doesn't exist. Which by itself is a major problem. It's not fair, or just, to subject passengers to a set of rules posted in different places (if at all), many of which may be contradictory.
2. A FOIA request might be able to generate such a list. However, if that's the only way to find the list of rules that a common passenger is expected to follow, it's particularly sad. I shouldn't have to file a FOIA request to know how to get on a commercial aircraft without causing an incident.
September 4, 2008 5:10 PM
***********************************
Jim;
you are absolutely correct in that you should not have to make a request under FOIA to be made aware of the rules that apply to you as a passenger traveling through a US Government checkpoint. As I said however, TSA admin has chosen not to answer the request in this forum. Sad but true. I can tell you what the rules are, but that's just me telling you, and is not what Phil has requested. Since The TSA blog team has not responded to the request in this forum, it is necessary to take it to the level of FOIA. Again, I agree 100 percent that such a list needs to be provided, and that if it can't be provided here in this forum, an offer to provide such a list on checkpoint should be made. One way or another an answer is needed and deserved but has not been given. FOIA is the way to go.
September 5, 2008 4:55 PM
I know that this is a part of making us safe , but is not really a "evolution".
I guess we all should go for "checkpoint friendly" bags.
November 6, 2008 5:28 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home