Comment Policy Refresher
Over time, we’ve seen some complaints about censorship and deleted comments. The most common comments to be deleted are spam, comments containing curse words, posts with no substance, (i.e. you suck) double comments and comments containing large URLs. We just wanted to talk about the comment policy and help people understand where we’re coming from.
1) It’s fine to be critical of the TSA on the blog. We never expected our blog to be a haven for our fans to wave their big foam hand that reads “TSA is #1.” It’s obvious if you read all of the previous comments on our blog that we’re not shy of criticism. In fact, we may appear to be masochistic at times. However, that criticism should be respectful. To maintain a civil discourse on the blog, we just can’t post overly disrespectful comments or name calling of any kind. (crybaby, idiot, rent-a-cop, moron, etc.) We get sarcasm, and it’s still OK to be snarky, of course.
2) I use some very colorful language when I’m away from family and work, so I’m not offended by vulgarity. However, many people are. Also, this is a government blog, and while we do our best to let our hair down and not be your typical source of government information, we simply can’t allow vulgar language. What isn’t vulgar to you is vulgar to somebody else. So no matter how minor or common the curse word, we won’t publish your comment if it contains any vulgar language. It pains us to do this sometimes. I’ve had to reject some really good comments due to minor curse words. Even if you abbreviate, or use the typical %*$&#*$%(%($*# in place of the actual word, folks still know what you meant and we won’t post it. I’m sure everybody can show their passion for a topic without being a potty mouth. So, consider your rejected post to be a virtual bar of soap that we washed your mouth out with.
3) Spam… Admittedly, we have missed a few here and there, but we do our best to keep the blog spam-free.
4) It is not mandatory, but several of us on our own time, after work or on weekends, have moderated the blog. Please don’t expect this to happen all the time. There will be times when your comment may not be approved until the next business day if it’s posted after hours or on a weekend.
5) For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain "on-topic." This means that comments will be posted only as it relates to the topic that is being discussed within the blog post. I am lenient on this due to the way the blog is set up, but if you feel the need to post repetitive comments that have already been posted elsewhere, they will be rejected.
6) When linking to another blog or webpage, make sure there is no offensive content on that page. Also, long URLs knock our format out of whack, so we have to reject comments containing long URLs. There are a couple of fixes for this. Go to tinyurl.com. It is a free service that will convert your long URLs into a much shorter URL. Also, you can go here to learn how to hyperlink.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
posted by Bob at
5:51 PM
Subscribe in a reader
85 Comments:
Bob,
Thanks for the in-depth explanation of why so many of my posts never make it, especially the ones pointing out the rampant cronyism that I feel are a major obstacle to productive change in the TSA.
I have never named any names, or pointed out any particular incidents that could identify any individuals and still my posts are fodder for the delete-o-meter.
Why Bob? Do comments like that make your higher ups sweat a little?
I detect the insidious fragrance of censorship!
January 9, 2009 6:54 PM
Fair enough Bob.
However when post are submitted and disappear one has to wonder.
The Delete-O-Meter is only updated in batches.
How about a page that lists by name, date and time of received post and a short reason why they are not accepted.
I know it would be a fair amount of extra work but this would resolve all issues of suspected censorship.
January 9, 2009 7:04 PM
Good refresher, Blogger Bob, but what about those comments we submit that meet none of your stated censorship requirements, are legit , and fit the topic and are still rejected?
Are there other typically un-stated TSA rules that we must comply with to get our comments accepted?
(I'm sorry, but I just could not resist the dig, and yes, I have documented those "failed" comments over at Trollkiller's blog, which I know you read because you have commented there.)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 9, 2009 8:44 PM
So you are going to be enforcing the policy more because we are creating too much work for you guys?
January 9, 2009 9:11 PM
Can we still say "you are idiots, and here's why...", or is PR Agent W____'s statement no longer operative, like your faux policy of answering comments posted on the aged on-topic posts.
For one example of a dead thread, try the little Got Feedback link under categories that the te4xt on the big Got Feedback points people towards. Or for other examples of unanswered questions in dead threads, look at the top posts in any of your "categories".
January 9, 2009 10:56 PM
Oh, and if you want to avoid reposting incarnations this info periodically, you should update the policy written on the page linked under the delete-o-meter.
Re-issuing a conflicting policy in yet another blog-post doesn't make your system very useful, it makes it confusing -- kinda like how TSA's SSI SOPs that conflict with what the public can read on your website (e.g.: 3.4-1-1).
If you want to do good document control, update the policy in one authoritative place and point people at it -- do not post multiple conflicting policies, like deleting "plague of locusts off-topic" versus "posted elsewhere" comments.
Also, the right way to deal with repetitive comments is repetitive answers. Easy to find FAQs (with answers) are an internet tradition that others use to solve the problem you are experiencing.
January 9, 2009 11:20 PM
Point five requires that you address the points where they are made. Repetitive posts are made because the points aren't addressed elsewhere.
January 10, 2009 2:28 AM
Bob,
That still does not explain why many of my comments disappear. Unless the "off topic" rule can be enforced more or less strictly at will.
January 10, 2009 4:46 AM
"Spam… Admittedly, we have missed a few here and there, but we do our best to keep the blog spam-free."
Nonsense. You just recently admitted that you knowingly allowed spam on the site and treated it like it was a joke to you.
January 10, 2009 4:49 AM
Bob, you recently posted an answer about $10k policy after many, many repeated posting of the same or nearly same question. I appreciated getting the information however it shouldn't have taken that much effort.
Regardless, this was an example of pushing the comment policy because TSA was not being open and honest about a procedure that has no bearing on transportation safety.
As a side note when requesting the document your referenced it seems your agency cannot identify said document with the document number you provided.
So is TSA unable to find internal documents by document name and number or did you give us false information just to shut down the discussion?
January 10, 2009 9:00 AM
Also, the right way to deal with repetitive comments is repetitive answers. Easy to find FAQs (with answers) are an internet tradition that others use to solve the problem you are experiencing.
I thought that is what this blog kinda is, a FAQ. They are posting information to answer and clarify things the TSA does. Guess some people need everything broken down to them in simplest form.
January 10, 2009 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...
"Spam… Admittedly, we have missed a few here and there, but we do our best to keep the blog spam-free."
Nonsense. You just recently admitted that you knowingly allowed spam on the site and treated it like it was a joke to you.
If you want to jump Blogger Bob for something at least make it something real. Spam is a pain to anyone that runs any site that allows customer comments. Some spam will slip by on occasion.
Use your energy on the important issues.
January 10, 2009 12:02 PM
RB said...
Bob, you recently posted an answer about $10k policy after many, many repeated posting of the same or nearly same question. I appreciated getting the information however it shouldn't have taken that much effort.
Regardless, this was an example of pushing the comment policy because TSA was not being open and honest about a procedure that has no bearing on transportation safety.
As a side note when requesting the document your referenced it seems your agency cannot identify said document with the document number you provided.
So is TSA unable to find internal documents by document name and number or did you give us false information just to shut down the discussion?
Blogger Bob, I think you can reduce the amount of repeat posts if you will tell us when you are looking something up or are trying to get it exempted from SSI.
Most of the people that post are working folks, we understand that you can't always get the information you need at a moment's notice. We are willing to be patient IF we know that answer is coming.
RB, I don't think Blogger Bob gave a false number. I submitted a FOIA request for documents pertaining to the OIG complaint I made over the summer. I gave the FOI officer the hotline control number assigned by the TSA. Amazingly just like yours they could not find HL08-0526 either. (hmm HL=Hotline 08=year 0526=unique identifier) Should be real easy.
On a lighter note I submitted a FOIA request for all information pertaining to "Trollkiller" and that has yet to be bounced back as being too broad.
You Gubment at work.
January 10, 2009 12:41 PM
TK,
As far as the comment you posted directing folks to your blog if their comments are deleted...
I'm torn. I have nothing to hide, but then again, it doesn't make sense for me to allow a link directing readers to comments that we won't allow.
What do you think? I think it's pretty simple for people to find you if they want to...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
January 10, 2009 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Also, the right way to deal with repetitive comments is repetitive answers. Easy to find FAQs (with answers) are an internet tradition that others use to solve the problem you are experiencing.
I thought that is what this blog kinda is, a FAQ. They are posting information to answer and clarify things the TSA does. Guess some people need everything broken down to them in simplest form.
This blog is not designed as a FAQ, it design and stated purpose is to create a dialog between the TSA and the citizens that it serves
When giving a clarification it should be broken down to its simplest understandable form.
If you will notice the questions that get repeatedly asked have not been answered or justified satisfactorily or they have been answered incorrectly.
Examples of this would be the question "Where are the complete list of rules we are required to comply with?" or "Please explain how the forced ID verification is legal when the statutes clearly show they are not?"
Both of those question have been answered but not to any satisfaction.
Stating "There is not a list of rules" is not a satisfactory answer because you can not expect people to follow rules that do not exist or can be created at the whim of a cranky, itchy TSO.
Stating "Because we can" is not a satisfactory answer to the ID question because the law clearly shows they legally can't.
I hope this helps you understand the repeated questions and why they continue to be repeated.
January 10, 2009 1:05 PM
Bob said...
TK,
As far as the comment you posted directing folks to your blog if their comments are deleted...
I'm torn. I have nothing to hide, but then again, it doesn't make sense for me to allow a link directing readers to comments that we won't allow.
What do you think? I think it's pretty simple for people to find you if they want to...
Well sew yourself back together. As I stated on the entry to my blog is I would follow the TSA blog rules (stated below) on what I allowed to be posted to that entry.
We will not post comments that contain personal attacks of any kind; refer to Federal Civil Service employees by name; contain offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups, or vulgar language. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly off topic or that promote services or products.
One thing that sticks in my craw is unfounded attacks on anyone. I have been online for a long time and I have discovered there are tons of make believe martyrs.
Too many times I have seen "They censored me because I was telling the truth" when in fact they censored you because you broke the rules.
This is my way of telling those that complain of censorship to put up or shut up. It will also give you the opportunity to correct those that truly feel they did not break the rules.
There is a post sitting on my blog right now that I think falls in the latter category. I think I know why you did not post it but not being you I can't state with certainty. Once you correct this person I think they will have a V-8 moment and say "oh, ok won't do that again".
January 10, 2009 1:26 PM
Trolkiller wrote...
"This blog is not designed as a FAQ, it design and stated purpose is to create a dialog between the TSA and the citizens that it serves"
Excellent point, TK, but creating an easily found FAQ page based at least in part on the questions asked and answered (officially) here would be an obvious and very helpful addition.
This would not only help the 'more casual' users of EoS to find answers to questions, but would help correct the ongoing problem with some folks repeatedly saying adequate answers have not been provided, while others say those same questions have been answered completely.
A FAQ would place the questions with the official answers in one, easy-to-find location.
Blogger Bob, here's an opportunity to improve the passing of correct and pertinent information from the TSA to those it serves. Is there something preventing it?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
P.S. Blogger Bob, since this is a "dialogue" between TSA folks assigned and paid to communicate with the public and the public, is there some way for us to remind the TSA folk of open questions that have neither been acknowledged not answered without repeating the questions? Thanks!
T
January 10, 2009 4:02 PM
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
January 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Re: Spam
Trollkiller said:
"Use your energy on the important issues."
I feel that a member of the TSA knowingly violating policy and finding it humorous is important.
"We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly off topic or that promote services or products."
January 10, 2009 4:23 PM
Blogger Bob wrote...
"Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit.
Bob"
Just remember, Bob, that links to most everything in EoS do not work reliably, and in fact that has been one of the comments repeatedly posted unanswered to EoS.
It would be much better if the FAQ page(s) were fully self contained.
That would not only get around the multiple problems with EoS links, but would also keep from forcing users of the FAQ from constantly leaving the page to view the answers...
Thanks for letting us know it's in process!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 10, 2009 4:28 PM
Bob said...
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit.
I would make Poster Boy do it. This will give him an in depth study on the concerns of the public.
On the FAQ please don't place links back to posts where the question has not been satisfactorily answered or the answer is now out of date.
As an example, the legality of ID verification question has not been answered to anyone's satisfaction and the law has changed. Any posts referring the old law would of course be out of date.
January 10, 2009 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...
I feel that a member of the TSA knowingly violating policy and finding it humorous is important.
"We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly off topic or that promote services or products."
"knowingly violating policy"????
I know of one case where it was questionable and Blogger Bob made the call. That is his job to make that call. I looked at the post and I most likely would have posted it too. On my blog I would have copy pasted out of the email notification and killed the link. BUT I get maybe one or two comments a month on average so I have that luxury of time. Blogger Bob does not.
I wonder if the outrage would have been as bad if the link went to an anti-TSA product, like my t-shirts, or is the outrage due to the "Christian" business link.
Bear in mind I have linked to my anti-TSA t-shirts in a post and nobody said spook about it.
As for Blogger Bob's humor, let him have that. It puts a human face to the TSA. I would hate to think of all TSA employees as Borg drones.
It is not fair if we are allowed to be snarky, and God knows we are, and then expect or even want Blogger Bob not to have that same freedom.
January 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Tomas said...
P.S. Blogger Bob, since this is a "dialogue" between TSA folks assigned and paid to communicate with the public and the public, is there some way for us to remind the TSA folk of open questions that have neither been acknowledged not answered without repeating the questions? Thanks!
I think it is about time for another Top Ten.
January 10, 2009 5:33 PM
Trollkiller wrote...
"Bob said...
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit."
"I would make Poster Boy do it. This will give him an in depth study on the concerns of the public.
On the FAQ please don't place links back to posts where the question has not been satisfactorily answered or the answer is now out of date.
As an example, the legality of ID verification question has not been answered to anyone's satisfaction and the law has changed. Any posts referring the old law would of course be out of date."
________________
A very good idea, and productive in a number of ways.
Poster Paul could go through each Post and it's comments, and copy/paste each question in a reference document of all questions, answered and unanswered.
As he comes to OFFICIAL answers to the questions he could past them in that same document, associated with the applicable question.
At the end of the exercise there would be a complete list of asked and answered questions for the FAQ, and a remaining list of questions that have received no official answer.
Some of those unanswered questions may have received unofficial answers that could be verified and made official - add them to the FAQ.
Some of those unanswered questions may be easy to research and answer - add them to the FAQ.
The remainder of those questions offer opportunity to respond to the concerns of the public the TSA works for.
Further, this would be a fantastic educational tool for Paul! He could truly come to understand those public concerns, and TSA's response to them.
Excellent idea, TK!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 10, 2009 5:49 PM
Bob said...
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
......................
I also think this is a good idea.
Lots of questions have been asked, some answered but many have not.
Some TSO's have given us their insight to questions but to be considered the "TSA" answer would require an endorsement by you or other TSA Official
I think a library of Official TSO Q & A is a worthwhile project.
And while getting that going how about a list of rules the common traveler must comply with when transiting a TSA Checkpoint?
January 10, 2009 5:56 PM
Bob said...
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
Since it seems like you guys want this, I'll speed up the process a little bit.
--
Bob,
You may also want to suggest a FAQs page based on those Q&A's, on the main TSA site. As many, many posters (including our own people) have noted, the site is neither an accurate nor complete source of information for the public re: what is allowed/not allowed. And as anyone who has worked the checkpoint knows (whether they'll admit it or not), the inconsistencies from airport to airport aren't a deliberate attempt at unpredictability; they're the result of differing conditions and cultures at individual airports, especially what is foisted by power-tripping STSOs, TSMs, and FSDs.
January 11, 2009 2:25 AM
Bob said...
Just so you know, I've been talking about putting up an FAQ page linking to blog posts where we've answered questions.
_______
This would be extremely helpful for me personally - not to mention so much less time consuming and stressful for you, Bob. Please provide us with an approximate timeframe for this happening - also, once the page is created, please paste us a link to it!
Thanks!
Steven Wevodau
January 11, 2009 9:46 AM
Bob should be proud. A Web post that is receiving very favorable comments rather than the typical negative comments we have all grown to know.
A step in the right direction!!
January 11, 2009 11:09 AM
RE: TK....RB, I don't think Blogger Bob gave a false number. I submitted a FOIA request for documents pertaining to the OIG complaint I made over the summer. I gave the FOI officer the hotline control number assigned by the TSA. Amazingly just like yours they could not find HL08-0526 either. (hmm HL=Hotline 08=year 0526=unique identifier) Should be real easy....
........................
TK, I was not claiming that the info Bob posted was faulty. I was attempting to demonstrate to Bob or any others who may have had the opportunity to attempt communications with other TSA departments the problems we citizens face when doing so.
I believe I saw another reference elsewhere to a FOIA request by another person for the same directive and the TSA response was that they could not identify the material requested.
Either the document does not exist as named or the TSA in incompetent in their research skills. I don't know which it is, but Blogger Bob probably does know.
January 11, 2009 11:20 AM
RB said.
TK, I was not claiming that the info Bob posted was faulty. I was attempting to demonstrate to Bob or any others who may have had the opportunity to attempt communications with other TSA departments the problems we citizens face when doing so.
I believe I saw another reference elsewhere to a FOIA request by another person for the same directive and the TSA response was that they could not identify the material requested.
Either the document does not exist as named or the TSA in incompetent in their research skills. I don't know which it is, but Blogger Bob probably does know.
Sorry RB this part threw me off.
So is TSA unable to find internal documents by document name and number or did you give us false information just to shut down the discussion?
I was reading the words and not the tone of the paragraph. I honestly thought you felt Blogger Bob lied. Thanks for clearing it up.
My theory is the FOI office is just like an insurance company. They automatically deny the first request in hopes that you will go away. If you are persistent then and only then do they do their job.
I guess I need to do a FOIA for that document too. Good thing the requests are free.
January 12, 2009 12:08 AM
Bob, while I appreciate the clarifications on why you delete posts, it still does not account for many comments that I have posted over the past months that have been deleted for no apparent reason. I'm going to start giving them to TK to post on his blog (thanks TK for this).
You state that you delete posts for items that are not relevant to the topic. If the TSA was actually a bit more forthcoming with requests for information, we might not have to continually bombard you with off topic requests to answer simple questions.
This is why so many participants are tired of the way this blog is moderated - the fact remains that there continues to be censorship of comments that do meet your guidelines. If this is going to continue to be the case, just shut it down - it's just a propaganda speakhole at that point.
January 12, 2009 12:54 AM
Thanks for the comments, they should help.
January 12, 2009 9:54 AM
I guess I understand the vulgar language thing, in a way. Not really though, actually it never made sense to me at all.... course... I am offended by the word vulgar in this context.
Vulgar refers to the common people. To say "We will have no vulgar language" is to say "We will not have the common peoples language"...so yes... it makes you exactly what I have always thought of people who make a big deal over "vulgar language"... elitist snobs that I have little to no respect for.
I mean, whats "vulgar" anyway? Of course, now the cat is confused in the bag... if we can't use the words, how can we talk about them?
I was goin gto mention a story that illustrates how what is "vulgar" is different in one place from another.
Will you censor my comment for having the word "bloody" in quotes? In england, that would be considered very vulgar, and some of our "most vulgar" words, can be said on TV there without people batting an eyelash!
How about "Tabernacle" eh?
Sorry, the vulgar language issue is another one that just leaves me saying "wow are your priorities screwed up".
But...I guess thats usually my complaint, isn't it?
Actually...I think your policy based on words alone may even get you into trouble. Even the FCC makes distinction that so called "vulgar" words can be used in the context of social commentary (like comments about the words)... even if the censors that work for TV and radio stations are too cowardly to generally allow it... you could at least be seen as somewhat bound by the the first ammendment and the concept of prior restraint.
-Steve
January 12, 2009 9:58 AM
> If the TSA was actually a bit more
> forthcoming with requests for
> information, we might not have to
> continually bombard you with off topic
> requests to answer simple questions.
What do you expect from an organization that actually believes it is justified to have secret rules that everyone has to follow.... and then blames people not following the rules for not following them.
This is the same organization that had to be sued, where the judgement came down that it was perfectly valid for there to be a requirement to show ID to fly, BECAUSE a person could submit to an extra security screening in lieu of showing ID.....
Nowhere was this known... until it appeared in a legal decision by a judge who actually got to see the secret rule.
How do you expect "forthcoming" from such a clueless organization as one that believes its reasonable to expect us to follow secret rules and that they actually make us safer. (both laughable ideas at best, but I guess as long as it fools joe-sixpack thats all that matters)
I am still waiting for someone to show me how airport safety has even changed, never mind gotten better, since the 80s.
I would say we were JUST AS SAFE back in the 80s when anyone could openly carry a loaded gun on the plane as we are today. We were just as safe 9/10 as we are today.
I still await anyone to show me even a tenth of a percentage point of difference in real risk.
If anything we are safer today, and 100% of that safety comes from technology improvement ON THE PLANE.
I simply DARE anyone to prove any different. I have yet to see a shred of evidence. Just "pat us on the pack for imagining up this threat and solving it specifically, at great cost to you", or "look at all the dumb people complaining about our latest regulation to protect you from the threats we imagined might be out there.".
Why can't we have an article about the real issues? Rather than this display of what I would need to dip into the commoner's language to describe. (apparently we aren't interested in the commoner's language, only his tax dollars)
In case you haven't noticed, our federal budget is about one third interest on the debt. Why aren't we hearing about belt tightening and the programs we are deciding are not worth persueing (like expensive milimeter wave machines we don't need, or expensive liquid analysers that will waste our time and money)
-Steve
January 12, 2009 10:26 AM
Examples of this would be the question "Where are the complete list of rules we are required to comply with?" or "Please explain how the forced ID verification is legal when the statutes clearly show they are not?"
Both of those question have been answered but not to any satisfaction.
So the questions are answered but because people don't like the answers they are unanswered? That makes no sense.
"Where are the complete list of rules we are required to comply with?" I have seen this question answered. There is NO list with everything together. If you don't accept that, well that is too bad. The question was answered. Poster Paul said he was getting the list together. I am sure it will take some time.
"Please explain how the forced ID verification is legal when the statutes clearly show they are not?" I don't really care about this because before TSA did it the airlines did it. The airlines checked your ID when you checked in at the ticket counter and the airlines(or private contractor) checked before the TSA security checkpoint. It is the same process but has gotten better! I see nothing wrong with that.
I think a new top 10 questions is a great idea! Hopefully we will not waste our questions on questions already answered.
-James
January 12, 2009 12:00 PM
I to favor a FAQ so it is easier to find information that has already been discussed. It sometimes is hard to hunt for an answer to something on this blog.
-James
January 12, 2009 12:26 PM
Steve look up "seven dirty words george carlin" on your favourite search engine. I think it will give you a good idea of the "vulgar" language you can't use here.
I would have linked to it but Blogger Bob would have had to censor this post.
January 12, 2009 1:45 PM
If you think this blog is good at delivering answers to the public, just try to describe the process a member of the public would have to follow for finding the proper incarnation of the comment policy. (Hint: it isn't the one linked under the "Delete-o-meter".)
And even if someone can find the "answers" that are posted by bloggers and semi-anonymous commenters here, how can anyone rely on them if the TSOs can ignore them at will?
January 12, 2009 3:02 PM
James said...
So the questions are answered but because people don't like the answers they are unanswered? That makes no sense.
"Where are the complete list of rules we are required to comply with?"
I have seen this question answered. There is NO list with everything together. If you don't accept that, well that is too bad. The question was answered. Poster Paul said he was getting the list together. I am sure it will take some time.
"Please explain how the forced ID verification is legal when the statutes clearly show they are not?"
I don't really care about this because before TSA did it the airlines did it. The airlines checked your ID when you checked in at the ticket counter and the airlines(or private contractor) checked before the TSA security checkpoint. It is the same process but has gotten better! I see nothing wrong with that.
I think a new top 10 questions is a great idea! Hopefully we will not waste our questions on questions already answered.
You are correct the rule question has been answered. The problem is the answer given was inappropriate for Federal agency whose rules carry the weight of law and is endowed with punitive powers.
Simple logic and legal tradition dictate that rules, laws and directives that must be followed under the color of law must be codified in clear language so that a reasonable person can understand it.
This is not the case with the TSA. Therefore the TSA has unsatisfactoryly addressed that issue.
I am truly sorry that you are unable to see the difference between a private company verifying your ID for business purposes and a Federal agency verifying your ID to limit a citizen's right to free movement.
Setting aside any Constitutional arguments, my question is why won't the TSA make the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area statutorily legal? I am not comfortable with any government agency that routinely violates the law especially when it wrote that law.
When the requirement first came down the excuse could have been they were premature on the implementation and they were not expecting anyone to call them out on it. Unfortunately for them, they got caught.
Now that they have modified the law and added a new law to cover Secure Flight there is NO excuse for the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area to remain statutorily illegal. Yet it does. Why?
January 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Trollkiller wrote...
Steve look up "seven dirty words george carlin" on your favourite search engine. I think it will give you a good idea of the "vulgar" language you can't use here.
I would have linked to it but Blogger Bob would have had to censor this post.
There was a Supreme Court decision about that comedy routine (FCC V. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U. S. 726 (1978)).
Surely Blogger Bob would not reject a link to a published US Supreme Court decision, would he? :^P
Another reference is this official FCC Policy Statement on "Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency" The official order (fcc01090) is on the FCC site.
(I removed both the US Supreme Court Decision link and the FCC Order link to ensure that this was allowed through.)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 12, 2009 4:21 PM
TK said...
Setting aside any Constitutional arguments, my question is why won't the TSA make the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area statutorily legal?
Setting aside any Constitutional arguments(not much legislation in this area) the systems and procedures used are legal. The new law just reflects the new secure flight program. The law is written in order not to limit the ability of TSA to make sure your name was checked against the no-fly and selectee list at the checkpoint(there are limits when it comes to information collection as outlined in the new law). It does limit the air carriers as far as ID is concerned but has the clause TSA can let you through the checkpoint by a case-by-case bases(only with list checking.) ID check is not the only way a TSO can verify who you are. To limit yourself to ID's would be dumb. Not everyone has a ID to check. Also you would have to change the law every time you changed the verification process (ie boarding pass scanners).
In short... you can not fly anonymous anymore. Do you have to have a ID to fly? no. My grandma can still fly and she hasn't had a form of ID since the the 90's.
-H2H
just my 2cents TK
January 12, 2009 5:37 PM
H2H, the problem I see, ant that I believe TK and others are referring to with the newly minted ID check rules (with force of law and attendant penalties) is that he new rules specifically calls for the airline rather than TSA to make that ID check in most current environments.
There is nothing in it that allows the TSA to do an ID check at most checkpoints, nor is there anything in it that says that absent a TSA verification of ID, one is not allowed past the checkpoint.
ID checking in the new law is tied to clearing the verified ID against the various blacklists, and AT THIS TIME, TSA IS NOT THE ONE DOING THAT CLEARANCE.
Clearance of ID against the no fly list or other government lists is done in most instances solely by the air carriers at this time. Until that changes, the law actually does NOT say that the TSA will check IDs...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 12, 2009 6:02 PM
Bob,
I submitted this earlier, and it didn't seem to make the cut, so I'll try to reword:
I'd strongly recommend that a page of FAQs for the blog, be also reproduced in some form on the main TSA website. Especially precisely what 3.4-1-1 means and what is allowable/not allowable ... statutory authority for ID checks ... oh, and exactly how much discretion STSOs, FSDs, etc., have to allow/disallow items not otherwise enumerated. Sending pax to "the TSA website" and expecting them to find the answer isn't acceptable, because TSA.gov ISN'T accurate or nearly complete. As a checkpoint LTSO, I never refer a passenger to the website, because they're more likely to get a bad (or incomplete) answer than a good one. As the point person in dealing with those inquiries, the website is an embarrassment and a hindrance to me, not a help.
January 13, 2009 12:58 AM
HappyToHelp said...
Setting aside any Constitutional arguments(not much legislation in this area) the systems and procedures used are legal.
The new law just reflects the new secure flight program. The law is written in order not to limit the ability of TSA to make sure your name was checked against the no-fly and selectee list at the checkpoint(there are limits when it comes to information collection as outlined in the new law).
It does limit the air carriers as far as ID is concerned but has the clause TSA can let you through the checkpoint by a case-by-case bases(only with list checking.)
ID check is not the only way a TSO can verify who you are. To limit yourself to ID's would be dumb. Not everyone has a ID to check. Also you would have to change the law every time you changed the verification process (ie boarding pass scanners).
In short... you can not fly anonymous anymore. Do you have to have a ID to fly? no. My grandma can still fly and she hasn't had a form of ID since the the 90's.
H2H, I am sorry but you are mistaken. If you review the relevant laws you will see for yourself.
I have taken the time to prove my argument on my blog.
Long story short, the TSA is limited by statute to granting access to the sterile area by searching and inspecting for weapons, explosives and incendiaries,
Under Secure Flight, you are ONLY required to show your ID to the covered aircraft operator not a TSO.
Under Secure Flight a person is ONLY required to "provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender" when requesting access to the sterile area.
That's it. That is all I am required to do. Show the ticket agent my ID, walk to the TSO and provide my name as it appears on my ID, tell them my sex and date of birth. (Oddly sex and date of birth do not have to be given as defined, so for gender you can legally say "undecided".)
The information is on my blog with links to all the pertinent law. please take the time to read it, digest it and if you can dispute it.
I would rather be proved wrong than to think that a Federal agency that is supposed to protect me from those that want to destroy our way of life is in fact breaking the law and destroying the very thing they claim to protect.
When I see something like this it always make me wonder why. Why would you not write the law to remove any and all loophole to the ID requirement?
If it were me, I would have just changed the definition of screening to include ID verification. Why didn't they?
The only two possible reasons I can see is either Francine's team is so incompetent they can't write a strong law or they know that a forced ID verification would fail the Constitutional test.
I really can not see anyone getting to Francine's position by being incompetent. So on logic I have to rule out incompetence. That only leaves the second reason.
January 13, 2009 3:43 AM
One of the major problems with any entrenched government department can be broken down into three areas: arrogance, insecurity, and indifference. It is an uphill battle to get the leadership to recognize and admit their mistaken policies and decisions.
Leaders have a vested interest in not being proven wrong, and are likely to make further mistakes to cover up their poor decisions. The indifference comes from a lack of real world experience to a large degree.
Do they have all the answers?
NO.
Do they have the secure sense of self to admit it?
NO.
Will there be less indifference in the new administration?
.....
January 13, 2009 9:09 AM
While we're talking about the Comment Policy several suggestions have been presented.
A FAQ and a New Top Ten Questions both of which I fully support.
For Top Ten starters I would like a rehash of why travelers cannot know what is expected of them (a list of rules) when transiting a TSA Checkpoint.
Second, I would like TSA to address the apparent lack of security of Checked Luggage and the continuing ability for various parties to remove or insert items in said checked luggage. If TSA doesn't consider this to be a security problem then I really have concerns for my safety when flying.
So Bob, Paul, Nico and other Blog Ops, are you guys going to step up and try to be responsive to the publics stated wishes or will this Blog continue to be nothing more than a failed PR attempt by TSA to convince us that TSA is doing a good job?
January 13, 2009 9:46 AM
Here is the top ten the TSA does not want to see.
January 13, 2009 2:13 PM
TK said...
I have taken the time to prove my argument on my blog.
Sure TK. I will be happy to address this for you.
Right off the bat I can see you are having some confusion with the law and why the new law is around. The law is only there to make the secure flight program legal in order to go forward with that program. Not to justify procedures, systems, and measures(49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) ). Those are already legal and have been covered by the legal team here on this blog.
Now I'm not going to dip into the specific parts of the law because there is no need. Here is a exert from the final rule on secure flight.
“Passengers and non-traveling
individuals seeking access to a U.S.
airport’s sterile area, for whom TSA has
not provided a watch list matching
result or has provided inhibited status,
must present a VID to the covered
aircraft operator if they wish to board
their flights. After presenting the VID,
an individual may receive a boarding
pass to board an aircraft or enter a
sterile area if the aircraft operator
receives a watch list matching result
from TSA that permits the issuance of
a boarding pass or authorization to enter
a sterile area. 49 CFR 1540.107(c).”
The new law is set up to address the direct challenge to airport operators requiring VID(TSA requiring airport operators to request VID). In Gilmore vs. Gonzales, Mr. Gilmore made a case around what he believed was secret laws(judge agreed that citizens should not be subject to secret rules). What the new law does is protect the new CAPPS II(secure flight) from a similar challenge. It places it all on the table for you(TK) and I to review. No more secret rule when it comes to checking in at the airport.
Okay I have gone over the sections of secure flight that I hope will move are dialogue forward. How does it apply to the checkpoint?
The new law address Gilmore vs. Gonzales and the ruling was that as long as you were offered enhanced screening ,with out showing a VID, then you were allowed to enter the sterile area. The new procedures at the Ticket Document Checker position just reflect the new law. You can no longer enter the sterile area without having your information checked against the TSDB. In short, no anonymous flying.
Here is just a quick look on TDC procedures, systems and measures.
Well you can't get into the sterile area without a boarding pass or security document(also covered by the new law) according to the security program that is currently in place(SOP, TSA rules, secret laws, -insert what you want to call them-). Insuring a passenger has a boarding pass or a security document insures the individual has had there information checked against the TSDB. At the checkpoint, TSA uses procedures in place to identify individuals who are entering the sterile area by first identifying the individual and comparing it to the boarding pass or security document. If you want to challenge the procedures and the system in place you need to combat the argument by Chief Counsel Francine Kerner.
Thank you for you time TK,
-H2H
January 13, 2009 4:55 PM
Trollkiller said...
Here is the top ten the TSA does not want to see.
January 13, 2009 2:13 PM
Tk's been OCS it appears.
(Over Cross the Street)
January 13, 2009 5:05 PM
Trollkiller @"If it were me, I would have just changed the definition of screening to include ID verification. Why didn't they?"
Bottomline--Because TSA thinks ID doesn't matter.
January 13, 2009 5:13 PM
Does the Minneapolis/St Paul airport have a FSD on staff?
What is the name of that FSD if they do indeed have an FSD?
What does a person have to do to ensure their baggage is properly secured by TSA after TSA inspects that luggage and the luggage was unlocked to begin with?
Why won't TSA officials at MPLS return phone calls when they said they were willing to deal with problems? I've got a card and names from two individuals who haven't returned any phone calls or answered any issues brought up during a recent discussion (going on three weeks now guys).
January 13, 2009 11:10 PM
bizarre, barring the use of phrases like "crybaby" make it rather hard to be snarky, or even effective. Dumbing down (is that allowed) phrases to the level of official government communication (ie, bland, meaningless drivel) makes it that much harder to actually have a discourse here.
January 14, 2009 5:00 AM
Thanks for the information. Those who are not happy will still remain. Will this bring constructive comments? I don't think so because now we are discussing the different scopes of vulgar,other cultures and languages on vulgar words. I also want to thank for your willingness to improve and I will wait to see the results and then react.
January 14, 2009 8:19 AM
So how busy is TSA with the upcoming coronation of the King, er I mean President elect?
January 14, 2009 4:11 PM
Kip would have no problem with any TSO using their downtime to read and comment on the blog.
Speaking of Kip. Farewell. We will miss you. http://www.tsa.gov/weekly
January 14, 2009 5:52 PM
RB wrote...
So how busy is TSA with the upcoming coronation of the King, er I mean President elect?
Very busy: TSA Press Release
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 14, 2009 6:11 PM
Speaking of Kip. Farewell. We will miss you.
....................
And you said that with a straight face, didn't you?
January 14, 2009 10:22 PM
HappyToHelp said...
Sure TK. I will be happy to address this for you.
Right off the bat I can see you are having some confusion with the law and why the new law is around. The law is only there to make the secure flight program legal in order to go forward with that program. Not to justify procedures, systems, and measures (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) ). Those are already legal and have been covered by the legal team here on this blog.
Now I'm not going to dip into the specific parts of the law because there is no need. Here is a exert from the final rule on secure flight.
“Passengers and non-traveling
individuals seeking access to a U.S.
airport’s sterile area, for whom TSA has
not provided a watch list matching
result or has provided inhibited status,
must present a VID to the covered
aircraft operator if they wish to board
their flights. After presenting the VID,
an individual may receive a boarding
pass to board an aircraft or enter a
sterile area if the aircraft operator
receives a watch list matching result
from TSA that permits the issuance of
a boarding pass or authorization to enter
a sterile area. 49 CFR 1540.107(c).”
The new law is set up to address the direct challenge to airport operators requiring VID(TSA requiring airport operators to request VID). In Gilmore vs. Gonzales, Mr. Gilmore made a case around what he believed was secret laws(judge agreed that citizens should not be subject to secret rules). What the new law does is protect the new CAPPS II(secure flight) from a similar challenge. It places it all on the table for you(TK) and I to review. No more secret rule when it comes to checking in at the airport.
Okay I have gone over the sections of secure flight that I hope will move are dialogue forward. How does it apply to the checkpoint?
The new law address Gilmore vs. Gonzales and the ruling was that as long as you were offered enhanced screening ,with out showing a VID, then you were allowed to enter the sterile area. The new procedures at the Ticket Document Checker position just reflect the new law. You can no longer enter the sterile area without having your information checked against the TSDB. In short, no anonymous flying.
Here is just a quick look on TDC procedures, systems and measures.
Well you can't get into the sterile area without a boarding pass or security document(also covered by the new law) according to the security program that is currently in place(SOP, TSA rules, secret laws, -insert what you want to call them-). Insuring a passenger has a boarding pass or a security document insures the individual has had there information checked against the TSDB. At the checkpoint, TSA uses procedures in place to identify individuals who are entering the sterile area by first identifying the individual and comparing it to the boarding pass or security document. If you want to challenge the procedures and the system in place you need to combat the argument by Chief Counsel Francine Kerner.
Thanks for the reply H2H but I am sorry we do have to dip into specific parts of the law because law is what governs us not a government publication giving us their interpretation of the law.
I am sorry you were confused on my argument and spent all that energy explaining and defending Secure Flight, it was not the focus of my argument. The fact that the new law added for Secure Flight just reinforces my argument that a TSO, or any non law enforcement employee of the TSA, has no legal right to see my ID is just icing on the cake.
Francine’s argument that 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2)because it mentions procedures, measures and systems gives the TSA an unfettered license to implement forced ID verification is incorrect.
I have given her opportunity to “show her work” on this blog but that challenge was not accepted. I have further given Francine opportunity to “show her work” by filing a complaint with the DHS OIG. That complaint was forwarded to her department on September 9, 2008 with a hotline control number of HL08-0526. As of yet I not received a reply.
To her credit she did attempt to answer questions I posed directly to her and made it the basis of this blog entry. I just wish she would have followed up by showing her work. After all this should be a slam dunk for an experienced lawyer.
The following is the section of the law that Francine feels gives the TSA carte blanche.
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
First thing to note is the use of the word "or" instead of "and". Any lawyer will tell you that when it comes to laws, words are very important. The use of "or" vs. the use of "and" will completely change the meaning of a law. By using "or" in the above law they made systems, procedures and measures separate entities just as the use of the word "or" makes the areas separate. If you look at the definitions of secured area, AOA, SIDA you will see they mention measures but not procedures or systems.
If you look at the definition of "sterile area" you will see how the TSA is allowed to grant access to the sterile area.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, AND incendiaries.
Notice the use of the word "and" instead of the use of the word "or" when defining what the screening function is. By using "and" it makes the entities inclusive. If they had used "or" a TSO would only be allowed to screen for weapons or explosives or incendiaries, not all three.
When read together the definitions of sterile area and screening function describes and limits the TSA to what they can do to grant access to the sterile area. ID verification is not within those limits.
That is why the TSA has no right to force an ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
Onto Secure Flight and the reinforcement of the fact that TSOs have no legal right to see my ID.
§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching UNDER §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case basis.
Even your excerpt of the final rule clearly states to what entity I am required to present my VID. That entity is a covered aircraft operator, NOT the TSA. But like I said earlier I would rather deal with the law and not an interpretation in a government document.
§ 1560.105 Denial of transport or sterile area access; Designation for enhanced screening.
(a) Applicability . (1) This section applies to each covered aircraft operator beginning on the date that TSA assumes the watch list matching function for the passengers and non-traveling individuals to whom that covered aircraft operator issues a boarding pass or other authorization to enter a sterile area. TSA will provide prior written notification to the covered aircraft operator no later than 60 days before the date on which it will assume the watch list matching function from that covered aircraft operator.
(c) Request for identification —(1) In general . If TSA has not informed the covered aircraft operator of the results of watch list matching for an individual by the time the individual attempts to check in, or informs the covered aircraft operator that an individual has been placed in inhibited status, the aircraft operator must request from the individual a verifying identity document pursuant to procedures in its security program., as provided in 49 CFR part 1544, subpart B or 49 CFR part 1546, subpart B. The individual must present a verifying identity document to the covered aircraft operator at the airport.
§ 1560.3 Terms used in this part.
Full name means an individual's full name as it appears on a verifying identity document held by the individual.
H2H, or anyone, please show me ANYWHERE in the law that gives a TSO the right to see my ID. § 1540.107(b)states I must PROVIDE my name as defined in §1560.3 not show an ID. §1560.3's definition makes it clear that the name I provide must be as it appears on my VID NOT the VID itself.
In conclusion I think I have proven my side of the argument that § 1540.105(a)(2)in no way shape or form overrides or changes 1540.5's limitation of inspecting for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as the sole criterion for a TSO to grant access to the sterile area. I have also proven that the amended § 1540.107 does not grant a TSO the legal right to see my ID and/or use that as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area but only requires me to provide my name as it appears on my VID. I have also proven that § 1560.105 requires me to show my VID to the aircraft operator and ONLY the aircraft operator. § 1560 only defines what must transpire between me and the aircraft operator and what transpires between the aircraft operator and the TSA in order for the aircraft operator to issue a boarding pass or non passenger pass.
H2H please show me where I am in error. Please use statutes and not TSA documentation as backing.
BTW you see I did not argue Gilmore as I agree mostly with the judges on that one. Gilmore did not have his rights violated because he had the choice of showing an ID or be subjected to a secondary screening. That to me is reasonable. The TSA has taken away its only saving grace in that case.
January 15, 2009 3:32 AM
Trollkiller said...
HappyToHelp said...
Sure TK. I will be happy to address this for you.
.............................
TK, you can argue with a stump all day long.
At the end of that day you'll have a sore throat and the stump will be, a stump.
Why waste your energies on that?
I would be sending follow-ups to the OIG asking what happened to my case. They have had adequate time to respond and after the 20th can pass the buck.
January 15, 2009 10:46 AM
6 days and this "comment policy refresher" still does not point at the comment policy it is "refreshing".
If you wonder why people don't use your documentation, it is because they can't find it.
January 15, 2009 11:09 AM
Anon,
Take a look at the link directly above the comment box.
If that's too hard to find, you can go here.
I'm also going to add the comment policy link to the side bar.
Thanks,
Bob
January 15, 2009 11:25 AM
Quote:
"or will this Blog continue to be nothing more than a failed PR attempt by TSA to convince us that TSA is doing a good job?"
Yup.... That's why even the people who work for TSA think it should be terminated.
January 15, 2009 12:43 PM
RB said...
TK, you can argue with a stump all day long.
At the end of that day you'll have a sore throat and the stump will be, a stump.
Why waste your energies on that?
I would be sending follow-ups to the OIG asking what happened to my case. They have had adequate time to respond and after the 20th can pass the buck.
Thankfully the stump is not who I am trying to convince. My arguments are stated for the rest of the forest creatures. The stump won't change its views but if its views are the only ones heard by the rabbits the rabbits will side with the stump.
I sent a FOIA request to find out what ever happened to that OIG complaint. The TSA FOI officer rejected the request because apparently having just the control number that the TSA assigned the complaint before sending to Francine's office was insufficient to find the complaint.
I resubmitted the request adding a little humor and snarkyness. Hopefully they will respond in the required 20 days or I will have to file a lawsuit to move them.
Play time for me is over, now I am mad.
January 15, 2009 2:50 PM
Bob, based on your comments over at TK's place it seems we must avoid use of common terms that are ok in normal everyday talk.
So if I said, BOHICA and put the meaning in parethasese (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) would we be ok as long as all the words like in my example are not considered vulgar?
I picked a phrase that is known to all and does not contain any words that are not normally heard by all.
If this concept is not ok would you please post a list of words that are not ok to use on this Blog?
January 15, 2009 3:30 PM
Bob: The link to the comment policy is not visible from the original post. There is indeed a link to the comment policy if you open up the comments and look above the comment box, but the original post does not show it. And in some navigation paths / browsers, you don't even see the comment box until you try to post a comment.
Adding it to the sidebar will be good, and a good replacement to the other (superceded?) comment policy linked under the Delete-o-meter on the sidebar.
But still, this scattering of conflicting policies across a large set of loosely connected web pages is a systemic problem with TSA's public information system. It goes deeper than just this comment policy, it is much the same as the "secret rules" issue.
Try to google or navigate your way to your "if the TSO determines it is dangerous, it is prohibited" rule and consider if it would be easy and straightforward for a Kettle to find it. If you don't make the rules easy to find, you will always have a hard time with compliance.
January 15, 2009 4:42 PM
RB wrote to Blogger Bob:
Would you please post a list of words that are not ok to use on this Blog?
Doing so would create a rip in the space-time continuum ... because after he posted the list, he'd have to delete the posting because the posting would itself violate the policy ... forcing him to repost the list again ...
January 15, 2009 5:21 PM
TK said...
H2H please show me where I am in error. Please use statutes and not TSA documentation as backing.
Sure lets take a look.
I'm going to place it into terms so everyone can enter into our dialogue if needed. If its to remedial for you TK I apologize.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
What does this section do?
This limits what the airport security program can call a sterile area.
Why is the security program limited to its definition of sterile area?
If the security program states that your car trunk is a sterile area it must meet the definition standards in order for it to be a sterile area. Such as your trunk must grant access to a aircraft, be controlled by either TSA or a aircraft operator, and TSA must conduct screening or persons and their property. Since your car trunk does not meet those standards the security program cannot treat your car trunk as subject to sterile area procedures. This section does not limit TSA on what they can do to let your into the sterile area. With out this strict definition of what the security program can call a sterile area TSA could place sterile areas where ever they wanted.
§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
This section says I must submit to screening and inspection if I want to enter the sterile area. What does this mean?
Screening(or screening function) has been well covered here on the blog(by TK).
Lets look at this section a little bit.
inspection(a) of his or her person(b) and accessible property(c) in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access(d) to that area(e) or aircraft under this subchapter(f).
inspection(a) in-spec-tion –noun 1. the act of inspecting or viewing, esp. carefully or critically: an inspection of all luggage on the plane.
his or her person(b) I will give examples. Walking through the walk through metal detector. A pat-down. Being observed for suspicious behavior.
accessible property(c) On your person and your carryon bags.
in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access(d)
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(a) (2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
You must comply with the procedures as stated in 1540.105(a)(2).
to that area(e) area = sterile area
or aircraft under this subchapter(f) subchapter = subchapter B
Does this mean TSA can make any procedures they want?
NO. The procedures in place must comply with existing laws and the constitution. Also, procedures must fit within the context of 49 U.S.C. § 44901 which is the Administrator’s fundamental statutory responsibility to secure the aviation transportation system.
The secure flight laws ensure that all individuals entering the sterile area pursuant to § 1540.107(b)(c) must have their information checked against the TSDB. Its reasonable for a TSO to use your VID as a form of identification. A VID is the most common way for a person to checkin at the ticket counter as required by law.
Must you have a verifying identity document (VID) to enter the sterile area?
No. § 1540.107(c) states that
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case basis.
Since TSA can give authorization on a case-by-case basis this is what allows(by law) that my grandma can fly without ever having a verifying identity document(VID).
What if I don't want to show my ID... PERIOD?
Check here. I can't go over procedures.
-H2H
January 15, 2009 6:34 PM
Jim Huggins said...
RB wrote to Blogger Bob:
Would you please post a list of words that are not ok to use on this Blog?
Doing so would create a rip in the space-time continuum ... because after he posted the list, he'd have to delete the posting because the posting would itself violate the policy ... forcing him to repost the list again ...
January 15, 2009 5:21 PM
......................
Ah, a paradox for Bob to solve.
Based on his comments over at TKs' place I find it difficult to use any of the old cliches to fit TSA guidelines in this case.
January 15, 2009 6:48 PM
To Anonymous:
At MSP, once a bag is screened it is routed directly to the air carrier. I work at MSP and would like to help resolve the issue. Please help me understand what has occurred to raise these questions by formally logging your issue through one of the following:
1. Send an email message to TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov
2. Call the national TSA Contact Center toll-free at 1-866-289-9673
3. Link to the national “Got Feedback” system on the Internet: https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/gotfeedback/GotFeedback.aspx
Through any of the above, your information will be sent directly to me. You will need to identify yourself and how I can reach you to resolve this matter. Most assuredly, you will be contacted as soon as I receive this information!
January 15, 2009 9:46 PM
RB, It would also be interesting to see a list of the letters which may not be used in abbreviations on this blog under the new revision of the comment policy . Even the abbreviation for Transportation Security Administration could offend the easily offended, who ostensibly are the ones the new comment policy is intended to satisfy.
January 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Let us keep our shoes on through security, and that'll make those long security lines go at least 25% faster.
That is all.
January 17, 2009 2:44 AM
To Anonymous:
At MSP, once a bag is screened it is routed directly to the air carrier. I work at MSP and would like to help resolve the issue. Please help me understand what has occurred to raise these questions by formally logging your issue through one of the following:
1. Send an email message to TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov
2. Call the national TSA Contact Center toll-free at 1-866-289-9673
3. Link to the national “Got Feedback” system on the Internet: https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/gotfeedback/GotFeedback.aspx
Through any of the above, your information will be sent directly to me. You will need to identify yourself and how I can reach you to resolve this matter. Most assuredly, you will be contacted as soon as I receive this information!
January 17, 2009 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...
To Anonymous:
At MSP, once a bag is screened it is routed directly to the air carrier. I work at MSP and would like to help resolve the issue. Please help me understand what has occurred to raise these questions by formally logging your issue through one of the following:
...................
Would you please tell us which remark your response was directed to.
Cut and paste a bit or at least the time stamp.
Thanks.
January 17, 2009 4:51 PM
I think we can agree to disagree Rob.
January 18, 2009 12:35 PM
Darn I was hoping HappyToHelp would have a reply to my analysis before the weekend is up.
January 18, 2009 2:21 PM
TK said...
Darn I was hoping HappyToHelp would have a reply to my analysis before the weekend is up.
I tried to get it in before the Eos team went off into the holiday weekend. Sorry but January 15, 2009 6:34 PM was the best I could do.
Also, just a reminder. Anything that I bring up and debate about is in no way the official party line. It is only a analysis. If you wish to find out about what the official answer is just ask and I might be able to point you to the right direction or find a quick link to it.
H2H
January 21, 2009 2:24 PM
HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
Darn I was hoping HappyToHelp would have a reply to my analysis before the weekend is up.
I tried to get it in before the Eos team went off into the holiday weekend. Sorry but January 15, 2009 6:34 PM was the best I could do.
Also, just a reminder. Anything that I bring up and debate about is in no way the official party line. It is only a analysis. If you wish to find out about what the official answer is just ask and I might be able to point you to the right direction or find a quick link to it.
HappyToHelp, I was hoping you had read my post, dated January 15, 2009 3:32 AM, and had a response to it.
I understand that you are a singular entity in these discussions and by no means are giving an official opinion.
I would like to ask, do you work for the TSA and if so in what capacity? (General info, nothing identifying. I want you to have the freedom to post without looking over your shoulder.)
If you have stated this information before, please forgive me, my memory is not what it used to be. Pretty soon I will be able to hide my own Easter Eggs.
If you could point me to the person at the TSA that is willing to honestly discuss this issue that would be great. I have placed the challenge on numerous occasions for the TSA to dispute what I am saying. Anyone on this Blog can testify that I am a fair man, and if I am proven wrong I will freely admit it.
The key is I have to be proven wrong and the evidence has to be strong, true and logical. Google definitions don't count.
Note to TSA lawyers: This will not go away until it is answered properly.
I have stated my argument clearly, if you do not understand the questions, please let me know and I will attempt to clarify them.
Please engage us in a real dialog to rectify this issue. Make a post explaining your side, then counter our objections to your logic. Win us over.
It can't feel good knowing that you are continually being out lawyered by a non lawyer that runs around the internet calling himself "Trollkiller".
January 21, 2009 10:28 PM
Regarding 4) It is not mandatory, but several of us on our own time, after work or on weekends, have moderated the blog. Please don’t expect this to happen all the time. There will be times when your comment may not be approved until the next business day if it’s posted after hours or on a weekend.
##########################
Does this mean that during business hours, we should expect timely approval of comments?
Maybe you could post a "last moderated" time in the sidebar to help people tell whether their comments are either rejected or still awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2009 1:51 PM
Got Feedback says: "...An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The control number assigned to this collection is OMB 1652-0030, which expires 8/31/2008."
Since that control number expired, does that mean your agency cannot conduct data collection with "Got Feedback"? And that you shouldn't have been doing so since September?
January 22, 2009 2:25 PM
I have to place a comment for you. I am a TSA employee and find this is a good idea to delete comments if necessary. I also have to let you know that there are many people who frequently fly for business and come in contact with very rude TSA officers on the checkpoints in different airports across the country. Many of these people are reluctant to send in complaints for fear their names will be put on a list in which there will be retribution for the complaints. These people travel weekly across country and go through the checkpoints of the largest airports. Their accounts of what takes place are astonishing! Being a TSA officer, I am appalled that other airports do not seem to be following procedures. But what most appalls me is the fact that the passengers are reluctant, for fear of retribution, to make any complaints about these checkpoints. I hope, somehow, you can get the word out to ALL passengers that they can make a complaint, verbally or in writing, without fear of any retribution whatsoever and inform them that complaints will be treated seriously. If we assure them of this, and follow through, we may be able to achieve the respect we all deserve.
January 26, 2009 1:31 AM
TK said...
HappyToHelp, I was hoping you had read my post, dated January 15, 2009 3:32 AM, and had a response to it.
I did answer it(January 15, 2009 6:34 PM). I don't see why you think the definition of “sterile area”( § 1540.5) defines how TSA can let you in. § 1540.5 just says what can be classified as a sterile area and list the criteria. In short it defines what a sterile area is and my previous post explains it quite well. I believe your argument was heavily based off of that section.
Then, you lead into C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) and talk about the word “or” used in the law but do not apply it. The word “or” in this section “a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area” is used because you can not be present in more then one area. Your either in a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area. Yes all those mean different things.
The next “or” in this phrase “without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to” means YOU ONLY NEED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF ONE. Either a system, measure, or procedure will not allow you to be present in said area's. If they used “and”, you would have to be in violation in all three in order not be be allowed in the above area's.
TK you also need to separate the check in counter and the Ticket Document Checker position. The airlines need to use a name on a VID to ensure you have been checked against the TSBD. The Ticket Document Checker is only verifying identification. The ID you show to the TDC is not running your name against the TSBD. The new section of law does not apply to the TDC position and that is why it only includes the covered aircraft operator.
Even your excerpt of the final rule clearly states to what entity I am required to present my VID. That entity is a covered aircraft operator, NOT the TSA.
Glad we agree. Sorry for the late reply... very bussy.
-H2H
January 27, 2009 7:19 PM
HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
HappyToHelp, I was hoping you had read my post, dated January 15, 2009 3:32 AM, and had a response to it.
I did answer it(January 15, 2009 6:34 PM). I don't see why you think the definition of “sterile area”( § 1540.5) defines how TSA can let you in. § 1540.5 just says what can be classified as a sterile area and list the criteria. In short it defines what a sterile area is and my previous post explains it quite well. I believe your argument was heavily based off of that section.
I am sorry I somehow missed your reply. I swear I did not see that when I wrote that response.
I am going to read that reply first because I can see by just glancing you put in a good amount of effort. I may consolidate the reply to this post with my reply to the earlier post.
BRB time to read.
As for the very busy, I do understand. No worries.
January 29, 2009 8:44 PM
Sorry for the delay, I had to work and then I did my taxes, then I fixed a heater. ARRGGG.. I need a vacation.
H2H thank you for putting in so much time on this and thinking it through. Not that I agree with your argument but it is refreshing to see the logic instead of a "cuz we said so".
Bolding my response for easy reading. CAPS used for emphasis not shouting.
HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
H2H please show me where I am in error. Please use statutes and not TSA documentation as backing.
Sure lets take a look.
I'm going to place it into terms so everyone can enter into our dialogue if needed. If its to remedial for you TK I apologize.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
What does this section do?
This limits what the airport security program can call a sterile area.
Why is the security program limited to its definition of sterile area?
If the security program states that your car trunk is a sterile area it must meet the definition standards in order for it to be a sterile area. Such as your trunk must grant access to a aircraft, be controlled by either TSA or a aircraft operator, and TSA must conduct screening or persons and their property. Since your car trunk does not meet those standards the security program cannot treat your car trunk as subject to sterile area procedures. This section does not limit TSA on what they can do to let your into the sterile area. With out this strict definition of what the security program can call a sterile area TSA could place sterile areas where ever they wanted.
§ 1540.5 defines three things. 1) the boundaries of the sterile area. 2) what entity controls the sterile area. 3) by what MEANS the access is controlled by.
I have no problems with 1 & 2, those are non issues to me.
"through the screening of persons and property" clearly defines and limits the means of granting access. There is no ambiguity on the means of granting access. The MEANS of granting access is THROUGH screening.
If you look a few definitions higher up on the list you see the definition of screening function and the definition of screening location.
"Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries."
As you can see by the above definitions, screening is limited to "inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries."
Neither the sterile area definition or the screening function or screening location definitions allow for a forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area. In fact as you can see it limits the criterion for access to a weapons, explosives and incineration search.
I don't see where 1540.5 allows for the forced ID verification. It seems to me that there is no wiggle room for the ID check as a part of screening.
§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
This section says I must submit to screening and inspection if I want to enter the sterile area. What does this mean?
Screening(or screening function) has been well covered here on the blog(by TK).
Lets look at this section a little bit.
inspection(a) of his or her person(b) and accessible property(c) in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access(d) to that area(e) or aircraft under this subchapter(f).
inspection(a) in-spec-tion –noun 1. the act of inspecting or viewing, esp. carefully or critically: an inspection of all luggage on the plane.
his or her person(b) I will give examples. Walking through the walk through metal detector. A pat-down. Being observed for suspicious behavior.
Was with you all the way to the suspicious behavior part. The screening inspection or search is ONLY for weapons, explosives and incendiaries.
If an individual such as a passenger, police or TSO sees what constitutes "suspicious behavior" (they feel a crime is being committed or has been committed) they are in their legal rights to reasonably act on it. Example, I see a man that is bloody carrying a knife, as a citizen I can apprehend that person because it is reasonable that a crime has been committed.
Screening inspection DOES NOT include "suspicious behavior".
accessible property(c) On your person and your carryon bags.
in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access(d)
The procedures being applied MUST be for the inspection FOR weapons, explosives and incendiaries. Shoe check is legal, the water restrictions are legal, the ID check is not. Neither is READING what I have in my wallet or or other property.
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(a) (2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
You must comply with the procedures as stated in 1540.105(a)(2).
to that area(e) area = sterile area
or aircraft under this subchapter(f) subchapter = subchapter B
Does this mean TSA can make any procedures they want?
NO. The procedures in place must comply with existing laws and the constitution.
Therein lies the problem, the TSA is adding a procedure(s) that does not fit in with the current law because the law limits screening to an inspection for weapons, explosives and incendiaries.
Also, procedures must fit within the context of 49 U.S.C. § 44901 which is the Administrator’s fundamental statutory responsibility to secure the aviation transportation system.
The secure flight laws ensure that all individuals entering the sterile area pursuant to § 1540.107(b)(c) must have their information checked against the TSDB. Its reasonable for a TSO to use your VID as a form of identification.
It is NOT reasonable for a TSO to force check my ID when the law (§ 1540.107(b)) clearly states
"An individual must PROVIDE his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area."
Note the wording "PROVIDE his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3"
§1560.3
"Full name means an individual's full name AS IT APPEARS on a verifying identity document held by the individual."
Reading those together it says I have to provide my name as it appears on my VID, not my VID"
A VID is the most common way for a person to checkin at the ticket counter as required by law.
The law requires that I show my ID to the airline ONLY if the TSA has not confirmed my right to travel,
"§1560 (c) Request for identification —(1) In general . IF TSA has not informed the covered aircraft operator of the results of watch list matching for an individual by the time the individual attempts to check in, OR informs the covered aircraft operator that an individual has been placed in inhibited status,
the aircraft operator must request from the individual a verifying identity document pursuant to procedures in its security program.,
as provided in 49 CFR part 1544, subpart B or 49 CFR part 1546, subpart B. The individual must present a verifying identity document to the covered aircraft operator at the airport."
Must you have a verifying identity document (VID) to enter the sterile area?
No. § 1540.107(c) states that
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case basis.
Since TSA can give authorization on a case-by-case basis this is what allows(by law) that my grandma can fly without ever having a verifying identity document(VID).
What if I don't want to show my ID... PERIOD?
Check here. I can't go over procedures.
Therein lies the rub, if I comply with the LAW I can still be refused the ability to fly even though when it comes to ID the TSA does not have the statutory authority to deny me.
Take a look at §1560.105(d)
"(d) Failure to obtain identification.
If a passenger or non-traveling individual does not present a verifying identity document when requested by the covered aircraft operator, in order to comply with paragraph (c) of this section,
the covered aircraft operator must not issue a boarding pass or give authorization to enter a sterile area to that individual
and must not allow that individual to board an aircraft or enter a sterile area, unless otherwise authorized by TSA."
Notice everything about the new law puts all the weight on the covered aircraft operator on checking ID when required and to refuse passage when required.
January 31, 2009 8:04 PM
TK said...
"through the screening of persons and property" clearly defines and limits the means of granting access. There is no ambiguity on the means of granting access. The MEANS of granting access is THROUGH screening.
I'm going to have to disagree with you TK. The definition limits what can be called a sterile area.
"Through the screening of persons and property" is a criteria. Think of a checklist TK. If I wanted to call a area of the airport a sterile area, I would need to make sure that TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, conducts screening of persons and property. That is the minimum TK you must have in order to call the area a sterile are. The definition of sterile area does not limit access control and the other definitions do not support your claim.
"Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries."
Screening or screening function is defined. No arguments about that.
Ҥ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
...without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property...”
You need to submit to screening and inspection. Not screening function and screening function. No wiggle room TK? Inspection function is not defined. Use of a reasonable definition of inspection would be warranted. Such as, the one I provided in my earlier post.
Lets look at the definition of screening location.
“Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.”
This is just another check list TK. As long as TSA checks for at least one of the three, they can call that area a screening location. All three do not need to be looked for to call a location a screening location.(read that three times fast) If they wanted all three to take place at every screening location, the law would read “... site at which individuals or property are screened.”
The definition of screening location and § 1540.107 do not back up your claim of the definition of sterile area limiting access control.
"It is NOT reasonable for a TSO to force check my ID"
As long as the Travel Document Checker is not checking your information against the TSBD, it is reasonable for a Travel Document Checker to identify you using a VID(§ 1540.107(b)). As long as there is a secure flight program, it is reasonable for a Travel Document Checker to identify you using a VID(§1560.3). As long as access to the sterile area is limited to boarding pass holders and security document holders it is reasonable for a Travel Document Checker to use a VID to identify you(§ 1540.105(a)(2)).
Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder TK. I am not trying to change your beliefs or your core values.
I am just saying what TSA is doing is legal.
Screening inspection DOES NOT include "suspicious behavior".
Sorry. Thats not what I meant. Replace suspicious behavior with BDO program. Didn't mean to take you off on a tangent about screening inspection(Did you mean function?) or waste your valuable time TK.
H2H thank you for putting in so much time on this and thinking it through. Not that I agree with your argument but it is refreshing to see the logic instead of a "cuz we said so".
Thank you for reading and commenting on the blog TK. Good and bad, your input is appreciated.
Sorry. I did not get to everything in your last post.
Have a good weekend TK.
-H2H
February 6, 2009 7:20 PM
H2H give me another day to respond. I was off today but I had some "Honey Do's" that prevented me from being able to give this my full attention.
One of the hazards of being married, but I swear going to Wal~Mart was not in the vows.
February 10, 2009 4:41 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home