Vlogging With Blogger Bob
Vlog. No, it's not an Eastern European surname, (Vlog the Vlogger) it's short for Video Log. Vlogging is basically blogging with a video. We're not switching to a Vlog format, but we are going to start vlogging occasionally.
In this vlog, we show you some footage of the inauguration. As history was being made, more than 300 of our Transportation Security Officers were there partnering with the US Secret Service to help keep the record breaking crowd safe.
For the snarks out there, we were funded by the United States Secret Service. TSA along with the its other DHS components worked with federal, state, and local authorities at the inauguration helping to keep nearly 2 million people safe. The inauguration was designated a National Special Security Event by DHS.
Check out our web page to see what part TSA played in this mammoth security undertaking. TSA.GOV
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
4:03 PM
Subscribe in a reader
90 Comments:
'Snarks' Bob? Are you perhaps referring to the tax paying citizens that fund TSA & DHS' activities?
January 22, 2009 5:25 PM
There was a boxcutter incident in Philadelphia Thursday Jan 22. US Air flight 3405 from PHL to Pittsburgh. All passengers in the gate area were herded off the plane then back onto the plane and re-screened each one. There were approximately 15 TSA officers plus PHL airport security AND Philadelphia Police. Anyone else know the details of this incident?
January 22, 2009 5:27 PM
I would love to hang out with Bob. He seems like an interesting guy.
Love the blog - Love the vlog - Not Crazy About The TSA - Love that you are communicating with the public.
January 22, 2009 5:44 PM
Very well done video, Bob, and on point showing the TSA doing a necessary job as only they are prepared to do it. (A job obviously well done, too! Congratulations on getting it done.)
Secondly, Bob, I'm really pleased to finally have a face and voice to hook the name to. For me (and I suspect others) it makes it MUCH easier to converse with someone if my mind can picture them. (You already have mine - I provided links ages ago in an e-mail.)
Take care,
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 22, 2009 6:06 PM
Hey Bob;
Did you compose the music?
I do think that Trollkiller has had a positive effect on your choice of ties.
January 22, 2009 6:33 PM
So Bob, is TSA also going to claim part of the fiasco that put people in 4 hour lines so they missed parts of the inauguration? Long waits are a hallmark of TSA ...
What about that huge soft target of many people gathered trying to get thru security?
Just think of what could have happened if someone had a liquid or shoe bomb!
A terrorist wouldn't have had to kill the President or anything like that to cause complete chaos and hysteria in DC on Tuesday. Simply detonating a bomb in a huge crowd waiting to get thru security would have been sufficient to send DC into utter chaos.
So this begs the question ... if the Secret Service wasn't concerned about shoe and liquid bombs causing chaos in an area with 1+ million people that arguably would have had more of an impact than 9/11, why is TSA so obsessed?
I mean, if it's not a threat to that many people and even our President, isn't TSA just overexaggerating the threat?
One can argue that security kept things under control and people safe. Of course, the argument can also be made that with all the soft targets of many people waiting outside security weren't hit (and easily could have been, causing mass chaos and panic) that maybe there aren't as many terrorists as TSA and DHS lead us to believe?
Al
January 22, 2009 6:53 PM
Bob,
I echo the comments of Mr. Ames. We had no doubt that the TSA was doing checkpoint screening after hearing about the debacle that occurred when thousands of people holding tickets could not get past your checkpoints to witness history.
And don't patronize us about being "snarky". The funds came from the private Inaugural Committee and the security-related funds were allocated among the numerous DHS agencies.
As a matter of fact, this is a new era as of noon on Tuesday. You no longer are authorized to be snarky about anything.
BTW, please tell us how Acting TSA Administrator Rossides plans to abide by the new Executive Order on FOIA?
January 22, 2009 7:40 PM
Al Ames said...
Of course, the argument can also be made that with all the soft targets of many people waiting outside security weren't hit (and easily could have been, causing mass chaos and panic) that maybe there aren't as many terrorists as TSA and DHS lead us to believe?
Shhhh
You will destroy the very premise that keeps the TSA and DHS in business.
FEAR
The average person has been constantly reminded of 9/11, to keep the FEAR instilled, so that the TSA & DHS can use that as an excuse to further their agenda.
We all find it odd that the TSA doesn't concern itself with individuals prior to a checkpoint.
Maybe because they truly know that the odds of anything happening is so small, it is not even worth worrying about.
January 22, 2009 8:56 PM
Looks like the TSA did a good job here. For those of you who would complain about this, if not the TSA, then who should have done this? They're the best-equipped federal entity for this kind of thing... and it looks like they carried out their task well...
January 22, 2009 9:02 PM
Eric: "Looks like the TSA did a good job here. For those of you who would complain about this, if not the TSA, then who should have done this? They're the best-equipped federal entity for this kind of thing... and it looks like they carried out their task well..."
They're the best equipped? Too bad they couldn't bring those strip search machines. You know ... the ones that could scan from a far that they pulled awhile back? They could have screened people so quickly if they had been willing to give up their rights.
I don't know that they're the best equipped. They didn't bring equipment from the airports (and was it REALLY necessary to bring a screener all the way from Seattle? Talk about a waste ...). From what I heard from friends who were there, the examinations seem to be cursory at best, so they might as well had the Argenbright people there doing it. Probably could have done it cheaper.
If you consider 4 hour waits, people not being able to enjoy their tickets because of the waits, and the thousands of people susceptible to terrywrists (they're everywhere, right?) thanks to those waits, then yes, I guess TSA accomplished their tasks well.
Earl
January 22, 2009 9:58 PM
"I mean, if it's not a threat to that many people and even our President, isn't TSA just overexaggerating the threat?"
When it comes to shoes and liquids, TSA is hallucinating the threat, because no threat exists.
January 22, 2009 10:28 PM
Al Ames wrote "is TSA also going to claim part of the fiasco that put people in 4 hour lines so they missed parts of the inauguration? Long waits are a hallmark of TSA ..."
People would have been screened either way. TSA was ONE of the branches of security pulled, probably because they wouldn't need to be trained before hand on how to pat people down or what to look for during bag searches. And I'm sure those officers traveling from Seattle didn't see it as a waste. I'm sure many would have volunteered to go for no pay just to be apart of something that big.
January 22, 2009 10:49 PM
As one who was on the Mall on Tuesday, I can say that it would have been a piece of cake for anyone to have brought an explosive device into the crowd and detonated it. "Security" was basically non-existent.
I saw several people with backpacks and asked a couple if their packs had been searched. The answer was "no."
All the while security was bumbling around with ticket holders, all heck could have broken lose in other places. You made yourselves look incompetent yet again.
As for this statement:
"Inauguration spectators reciprocated with “thank you for being there” as they exited the Mall for the inaugural parade. “It was truly an honor to hear the spectators thank us,” said TSO Edward Woodall of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. “It was remarkable to see spectators and security working so well with one another.”
People who viewed the day's events from the Mall did not go to the parade as the parade route was full by the time the Inauguration ended and checkpoints were closed. So you're handing us a bunch of nonsense, Bob.
January 23, 2009 7:48 AM
Many things were going on at many airports. Security was reinforced at all airports not just Philly. As far as crowd control, I do not think TSA was running the show. There were many incidents that are now shown on the news, like individuals stuck in tunnels for hours, the rich and famous walking because there were no cabs. . I don't know about you, but it would have been nice to witness but I myself do not like crowds and I was curious as to how they were going to handle the crowds. Even the best planning is not sufficient for the extrordinary amount of people that attended. I had the best seat in the house, in front of the TV at home.
January 23, 2009 9:28 AM
Since Al Aimes brought it up:
So this begs the question ... if the Secret Service wasn't concerned about shoe and liquid bombs causing chaos in an area with 1+ million people that arguably would have had more of an impact than 9/11, why is TSA so obsessed?
********************************
Which then leads me to ask Vlogger Blogger Bob (boy is that getting to be a mouthful!)-did you happen to see the special on the History Channel that has been offering 'Secret Access-Air Force One'? In addition to being the cleanest plane most of us have absolutely no hope of ever riding in, there was a scene of the Secret Service screening those who were slated to meet & greet former President Bush while he was in Africa last year. The Secret Service brings their own WTMDs, x-rays, & hand held metal detectors, but you know what was the most jaw-dropping part of the whole process? Right there, in living color on my tv screen, was film of these meet & greeters going thru the Secret Service's checkpoint prior to going right out onto the tarmac & NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAD TO TAKE OFF THEIR SHOES!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if the Secret Service is willing to let all these people get close enough to literally touch their #1 protectee w/o taking off their shoes, please explain this continued fetish of the TSA's w/the shoes of the traveling public.
After you've done that, please provide answers to all the other questions that have been asked, some by me, some by others, most repeatedly, & all ignored. I'm still really curious about the now departed Kippie's claim on '60 Minutes' in December that there were 2 passengers the TSA was 'watching' while in flight 'right now!'-how did they get that far despite the much vaunted layers & what was done about the apparent layer failure as well as the 2 passengers of interest once they were back on the ground? Pretend I'm a flying Kettle & not knowing this will make me afraid to get on a plane, if it helps...
January 23, 2009 11:55 AM
txrus @ "Secret Service's checkpoint prior to going right out onto the tarmac & NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAD TO TAKE OFF THEIR SHOES!!!!!!!!!!"
Maybe the SS folks are applying the TSA's shell-game of layers-of-security expertise (c.f. document checking) and allowing the shoes to be checked elsewhere?
January 23, 2009 2:47 PM
While you were vlogging, Got Feedback's certificate expired. Is it's document control number still obsolete too?
January 23, 2009 2:52 PM
Quoted:
" txrus said...
'Snarks' Bob? Are you perhaps referring to the tax paying citizens that fund TSA & DHS' activities?
January 22, 2009 5:25 PM"
Nope - He means people like you!
January 23, 2009 3:46 PM
Quoted:
"So this begs the question ... if the Secret Service wasn't concerned about shoe and liquid bombs causing chaos in an area with 1+ million people that arguably would have had more of an impact than 9/11, why is TSA so obsessed?"
Uh, if you had actually read the post, you'd see that it was a joint venture with the USSS. If they felt the threat was unwarranted, you can be sure they would not have agreed to this.
January 23, 2009 3:49 PM
Geesh! Some of you folks are just MEAN.
I thought the video was pretty nice. Its funny that Bob asked us to relax and take off our shoes before watching. Ha!
This was a huge event.
I was screened by the Secret Service in St. Louis when Pres. Obama (candidate at the time) spoke at the Gateway Arch this fall. TSA helped with that too. I have no doubt that the TSA was the right agency for task (one of hundreds)it was assigned.
Of course the rules are different than when you fly. Why wouldn't they be? I wouldn't be surprised if the people who were supposedly stuck for 4 hours waiting to get through security weren't the same people who show up at the airport at 10:15 for 10:30 flight and want to blame TSA for making them late!
I'm usually a naysayer but this time I say "HOORAY".
Thanks Bob!
January 23, 2009 4:50 PM
"Uh, if you had actually read the post, you'd see that it was a joint venture with the USSS. If they felt the threat was unwarranted, you can be sure they would not have agreed to this."
Apparently, the anonymous person who gave this answer did NOT understand the point Al Ames was making because the response above makes absolutely no sense.
January 23, 2009 5:03 PM
If not TSA, then the USSS would have had just as much to do with the long lines, and screening. People just feel the need to blame TSA, because TSA is the unholy "waste of tax payer money". Yet thousands of other people have no problem with their screening procedures.
Also... do people forget TSA are tax payers as well?
I say well done to TSA, and ALL the other officers that took the time to be at that event.
January 24, 2009 10:44 AM
I agree with Tom that it is nice to finally have a face with the name. (Blogger Bob)
Secondly, in response to the comment made on the TSO from Seattle, I agree that it was not a waste. He might have offered to volunteer to be part of this major historical event!! And even if he didn't, so what. They couldn't use every single TSO from D.C so I'm sure they had to pull from elsewhere; including Seattle apparently. I'm sure if you had the opportunity to do something like that, you wouldn't turn it down.
One last note...I was pleased to see more positive comments in this post than ever before. Most of you may think TSA doesn't deserve any appreciation for what we do, but nonetheless, it was nice to see a more positive attitude!!
SDF TSO
January 24, 2009 12:25 PM
I am the Snark Blogger Bob warned you about.
It does not matter if the Secret Service paid for the TSA out of its budget or the TSA paid for out of its budget, the fact still remains that the money came from the taxpayer's pocket.
Even if you assume a cost was for the pay the screeners received, shipping screeners from across the country to D.C., overtime, and per diems all created extra expenses for the taxpayer.
While I am all for saving money the real cost of all this was the detriment to security at the airports. When you have screeners working for 22 hours plus they can not be effective in the jobs they were hired to do.
From the article TSA officers Maurice Atkins and Bryant Lovelace had worked 22 hours straight at the airport Wednesday.
They said weren't sure when they would go home.
"We'll be here 'til we have enough personnel to cover everything," Lovelace said.
I admire Maurice, Bryant and all the other TSOs that sucked it up and worked the extra hours to make sure there was coverage but expecting them to be effective is just plain stupid. Heck even the Trollkiller gets punchy after 20 hours.
To Blogger Bob:
The tie looks better, did your wife pick this one out for you? ;-)
January 24, 2009 7:55 PM
Nice to put a face with the name, Blogger Bob. I think you should do more Vlogs; I enjoyed this one.
But, I just have to ask, is it going to be standard practice from now on to have TSA screening everybody as these so-called "National Security Events"? I realize TSA is probably better equipped than the DC Police or the USSS to conduct screenings on a mass scale, but I'm just curious to know what is the legal basis that gives your agency the role of providing security for events totally unrelated to transportation? Do you feel like it's TSA's role? If so, should the TSA change its name to perhaps FSA (Federal Security Administration) or something that more clearly describes your security role in all matters inside and outside of transportation? At a minimum, do you feel like there needs to be a change in the law that defines what your agency does? Why or why not?
January 24, 2009 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...
Nice to put a face with the name, Blogger Bob. I think you should do more Vlogs; I enjoyed this one.
But, I just have to ask, is it going to be standard practice from now on to have TSA screening everybody as these so-called "National Security Events"? I realize TSA is probably better equipped than the DC Police or the USSS to conduct screenings on a mass scale, but I'm just curious to know what is the legal basis that gives your agency the role of providing security for events totally unrelated to transportation? Do you feel like it's TSA's role? If so, should the TSA change its name to perhaps FSA (Federal Security Administration) or something that more clearly describes your security role in all matters inside and outside of transportation? At a minimum, do you feel like there needs to be a change in the law that defines what your agency does? Why or why not?
If you think that the TSA is over stepping its legal bounds by providing security for political events, the fact the TSA BDOs will be working the Super Bowl should blow your mind.
From this article in the Tampa Tribune.
"For the first time, the Transportation Security Administration's "Behavior Detection Officers" are enhancing security at the championship event by watching people for combinations of suspicious behavior.
"They're trained to do exactly that – pick people out of a crowd," Gary Milano, federal security director for the TSA's Tampa office, said today."
So what other pies is the TSA going to stick their fingers in?
January 25, 2009 2:16 AM
Maybe it is not out of their legal bounds because they are not heading the security of the event. They are just working with another agency that is heading the security. In this case the US Secret Service.
January 25, 2009 9:37 AM
So what other pies is the TSA going to stick their fingers in?
January 25, 2009 2:16 AM
The slippery slope is very steep when DHS/TSA is involved.
January 25, 2009 10:24 AM
"For the first time, the Transportation Security Administration's "Behavior Detection Officers" are enhancing security at the championship event by watching people for combinations of suspicious behavior.
Yea, right. SOMEBODY is just looking for an inexpensive way to go to the Superbowl ;)
January 25, 2009 2:49 PM
An Anonymous poster asks:
" . . . . I'm just curious to know what is the legal basis that gives your agency the role of providing security for events totally unrelated to transportation? Do you feel like it's TSA's role? If so, should the TSA change its name to perhaps FSA (Federal Security Administration) or something that more clearly describes your security role in all matters inside and outside of transportation? At a minimum, do you feel like there needs to be a change in the law that defines what your agency does? Why or why not?"
In this case, I have to come down in favor of the TSA. It's routine practice for government agencies to loan personnel who have specialized skills to other government agencies during events of this type. There's nothing whatever suspicious or nefarious about it. When cost is an issue, the cost is generally reimbursed by the lead agency. SOP, long established practice among government agencies. Even allowing for all the delay (impossible to avoid with a crowd that size), TSA probably moved those people a lot faster than some DC cop or federal agent who had never participated in a mass screening could have.
I have a lot of gripes about TSA, but let's give credit where credit is due, okay?
Irish
January 25, 2009 5:55 PM
Great video! Since vlogging may become a regular occurrence, I'm curious about YouTube cookies and privacy laws. I read an article posted on cnet.com 1/22/09 by Chris Soghoian that mentioned possible privacy issues.
January 25, 2009 9:34 PM
wow, some people are just never happy. Thanks TSA for at least trying and for accomplishing many things.
Some are just argumentative all the time it seems, and yes there are comments that never seem to get answered, but do we really need bad comments all the time no matter what?
I feel safer flying, I see things that are dangerous found on checkpoints all the time. Thanks again for the hard work and all you do to deal with the "Trouble" Passengers
January 26, 2009 6:00 AM
"I feel safer flying, I see things that are dangerous found on checkpoints all the time. Thanks again for the hard work and all you do to deal with the "Trouble" Passengers."
Please list those "things" that you have seen that have even a remote chance of damaging an aircraft.
January 26, 2009 10:56 AM
TSA finds boxcutters all the time on planes and they almost always come back to airline maintenance that are left behind.
January 26, 2009 11:39 AM
Anonyous @ "I feel safer flying, I see things that are dangerous found on checkpoints all the time. Thanks again for the hard work and all you do to deal with the "Trouble" Passengers"
--------
This is proof that security theatre worked on you. Feeling safer is very different than being safer, and TSA focuses on the first. You probably would also feel safer if you saw a sticker that said "Security System Inside" or if you read about Muslims being denied flights.
If TSA wastes its time and our money checking IDs against boarding passes provided by the passengers themselves, or kicking brown people off of airplanes, or having Behavior Detection Offcers & dogs sniffing for joints, which might make some passengers "feel safe" they won't have time to do anything meaningful that actually affects security.
January 26, 2009 12:19 PM
"I feel safer flying, I see things that are dangerous found on checkpoints all the time. Thanks again for the hard work and all you do to deal with the "Trouble" Passengers"
Are you a troll?
Please explain what you mean by the rather undefined term "trouble passengers".
Is this a part of some TSA "secret handshake" vocabulary, or do you have a specific and legitimate gripe about certain types of unacceptable passenger behavior that you would like to enlighten us with?
January 26, 2009 3:44 PM
Yet another anonymous posted
This is proof that security theatre worked on you. Feeling safer is very different than being safer, and TSA focuses on the first. You probably would also feel safer if you saw a sticker that said "Security System Inside" or if you read about Muslims being denied flights.
If TSA wastes its time and our money checking IDs against boarding passes provided by the passengers themselves, or kicking brown people off of airplanes, or having Behavior Detection Offcers & dogs sniffing for joints, which might make some passengers "feel safe" they won't have time to do anything meaningful that actually affects security.
January 26, 2009 12:19 PM
Please get your facts straight before you start bashing the TSA. If you follow the link you provided and READ the article you will note that it was NOT the TSA that had the passengers removed from the flight or denied them reboarding. It was panic-stricken, bigoted passengers on the flight and the airline.
TSA probably should not have commented on the incident but was in no way responsible for it.
Please shout at the top of your lungs about the things that are really wrong with the agency, but check your facts first.
If I'm wrong on this let me know.
January 26, 2009 6:23 PM
A couple of questions Bob.
First, I support your efforts for Vlogging. Get some questions together, gather up some TSA experts and have a go at it.
Now,this job title, "Assistant Administrator for Human Capital".
What a strange title. Does this person trade human bodies around like money? Is 10,000 units of capital contraband? Thought slave trading was outlawed.
Lastly, what is being done to ensure a travelers checked baggage is secure from the moment they hand over their baggage to the airline/TSA until the time the luggage is retrieved at the end of their travels?
Surely TSA understands that if something can be removed from checked baggage something can as easily be placed in these same bags.
January 26, 2009 10:29 PM
Carrot Top TSO wrote...
Please get your facts straight before you start bashing the TSA. If you follow the link you provided and READ the article you will note that it was NOT the TSA that had the passengers removed from the flight or denied them reboarding. It was panic-stricken, bigoted passengers on the flight and the airline.
TSA probably should not have commented on the incident but was in no way responsible for it.
Please shout at the top of your lungs about the things that are really wrong with the agency, but check your facts first.
OK (though I'm not the one addressed), the upper (appointed) levels of TSA should not have come out with an OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT that needless panicked responses by the bigoted mouth breathing passengers on the flight and in turn by the crew and air carrier itself were something a US Government agency fully backed and was in fact proud of.
Sadly, though, that is typical of the public pronouncements by that particular ex government official.
(Even though TSA may not have been the originator of this particular prejudiced action, when they came out and officially blessed it they encouraged more of the same, which is NOT appropriate for a government agency.)
Just my humble opinion, y'all!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 26, 2009 10:38 PM
Bob, for your first Vlog-Cast would you please address why TSA thinks its 3-1-1 slogan is more important than providing the traveling public with correct information.
Secondly, please address how ID checking is a responsibility of the aircraft operator, not TSA and why TSA feels it is ok to violate the law.
Thirdly, please dicuss why $10,000 U.S currency is considered contraband by TSA and how the carriage of money could be used as a weapon on a flight.
Lastly, at least for now, discuss what actions have been taken to safeguard checked baggage while in the custody of TSA, Airline and airport authorities.
For other posters please add to the list for your desired topics for the first Vlogger Bob Vlog-Cast.
Thanks!
January 27, 2009 10:36 AM
They encouraged the action only in the way that passengers were being aware and letting officials know about something they thought was suspicious. There is nothing wrong with TSA saying good job to passengers noticing something out of the ordinary.
January 27, 2009 12:26 PM
Carrot Top: AirTran says TSA was part of it "nine were detained for interrogation by the local law enforcement officials, the FBI and the TSA" and TSA's statement says nothing about the detainment while praising the "panic-stricken bigoted" "alert passengers"
In any case, detaining the muslims was clearly a false alarm, like much of what TSA touts as "successes" in its self-promoting security theatre public relations campaign. When people think that false alarms are praiseworthy and make people "feel safer", it is just overplayed security theater, not real security.
January 27, 2009 2:29 PM
I like the Vblogging except I can't get YouTube at work the Net Nazi installed won't let me. (Net Nazi is like a Net Nanny without the love.)
Blogger Bob, if possible in the future can you also put a link to a standard windows media file. Those I can download and then watch local.
If it is too big of a pain don't worry about it as I can watch when I get home.
As long as we are expanding the technology of the Blog I would like to see a virtual round table or live chat Q & A on a fairly regular basis. Once every quarter would be great.
What I envision is this, get a few steady blog posters such as myself and pair them up with a TSA official or officials. The blog poster can ask direct questions of the TSA official and actually have a dialog with them. By the same token the TSA official can ask direct questions of the poster.
Set aside a bit of time at the end for open questions from anyone that wants to participate.
January 27, 2009 2:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
They encouraged the action only in the way that passengers were being aware and letting officials know about something they thought was suspicious. There is nothing wrong with TSA saying good job to passengers noticing something out of the ordinary.
Ahh, but this sort of attitude --- from TSA or anyone else --- is misguided.
First ... who is to say what is "ordinary" and what is not? Do we really want a society in which only "ordinary" people can fly on an airplane --- however you define the term?
Secondly, why should "unusual" be automatically equated with "suspicious"? Are we not a country that values diversity?
Third, why are people who look to be of middle-Eastern descent having a conversation automatically more "suspicious"? Richard Reed was half-Anglo. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were all-Anglo.
Finally, why aren't people being asked to exercise a little professional judgment? One of the biggest problems here was that everyone passed the responsibility for this situation on to someone else. The passengers passed responsibility to the flight attendants, who passed it to the pilot, who passed it to LEOs. Any one of them could've stopped the process by saying "this was an ordinary conversation." But it was easier for everyone to simply "pass the buck" to someone else, until such a fuss had been created that the innocent victims of this gossip couldn't take their flight --- even after LEOs cleared them of all wrongdoing.
January 27, 2009 2:43 PM
Bob, for your first Vlog-Cast would you please address why TSA thinks its 3-1-1 slogan is more important than providing the traveling public with correct information.
Secondly, please address how ID checking is a responsibility of the aircraft operator, not TSA and why TSA feels it is ok to violate the law.
Thirdly, please dicuss why $10,000 U.S currency is considered contraband by TSA and how the carriage of money could be used as a weapon on a flight.
Lastly, at least for now, discuss what actions have been taken to safeguard checked baggage while in the custody of TSA, Airline and airport authorities.
For other posters please add to the list for your desired topics for the first Vlogger Bob Vlog-Cast.
Thanks!
___________________________________
Ewww. A bunch of questions that have been answered a hundred times.
The 3-1-1 who cares! So you can really have 3.4, but it is advertised 3. Maybe it is because people like to push their luck. All the time. So maybe headquarters wants to continue to advertise the way they do so that when people push it they are still with in regulation. People always bring in 4 oz liquids and they say, "but its only 4oz". But its only 4 oz, really, wrong answer!
ID checking is not violating any law. Get over it, everyone! The TSA has the right to compare your government ID to your ticket. But keep whining about it, it might get you somewhere!
You know as well as everyone else who compains constantly about this junk that cash can not be used as a weapon. I know that it has been answered before so I am not going to waist my time. There are cash regulations, and weather they are TSA regulations or not, they will enforce the rules of other agencies. If that means asking a few questions then so be it. TSA is not finding money in bags and putting people in a headlock while they count out all of the currency!
What actions have been taken to safeguard luggage. I don't think that airport employees are interviewed by psychics. If there is a bad person in the crowd thats unfortunate, but there is really no way to tell that. There could always be cameras added but what about when the person steps out of the view of the camera. No person can be watched 24/7.
Thanks.
January 27, 2009 3:56 PM
That is a good job.Thanx
January 27, 2009 5:02 PM
Yet Another Anonymous bleated...
They encouraged the action only in the way that passengers were being aware and letting officials know about something they thought was suspicious. There is nothing wrong with TSA saying good job to passengers noticing something out of the ordinary.
"...something out of the ordinary."
Airline passengers are CONSTANTLY chatting amongst themselves about the most comfortable seats, the safest seats, the best place to sit, and have since the planes were made of canvas and wood.
The only "something" out of the ordinary AT ALL in this entire mess was that the passengers in question didn't look like everyone else, and they had accents.
THAT should not be a sufficient difference to get them pulled from the flight and refused a follow-on flight, and it CERTAINLY should not be sufficient for a government official to publicly applaud the actions of the bigoted sheeple who panicked.
I know that I have had casual discussion on the safest seats, etc, while on-board an airliner, I suspect even you, Anonymous #542, may have said things similar.
Your and my only saving grace is that WE do not look or sound like THEM...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 27, 2009 6:35 PM
Anonymous Trollkiller said...
I am the Snark Blogger Bob warned you about.
It does not matter if the Secret Service paid for the TSA out of its budget or the TSA paid for out of its budget, the fact still remains that the money came from the taxpayer's pocket.
___________________________________
J.H C. Trollkiller - I leave this thing for a few months and you are still pi---- and moaning when I return, kind of like a one man 24/7 Air America.
Now just supposed the USSS made no effort to secure the event and just suppose something would have happened. Would you be one of the first to demand those worthless federal employees whose job it was to secure the event be investigated, fired, and then maybe even burned? I certainly do not think TSA is the answer to everything and/or the government is the cure for even less but at least I attempt to find a silver lining once in a while.
As for your point, why don't you take it to the USSS blog as they are 100% responsible for the protection of the president? Oh, I forgot, maybe it is because they don't care enough about yours or anyone else's opinion to have a blog or even a suggestion box.
Well, off for another few months. Hang in there Blogger Bob. You seem to have a loyal following of opinionated nay sayers.
January 27, 2009 8:03 PM
"The 3-1-1 who cares! So you can really have 3.4, but it is advertised 3. Maybe it is because people like to push their luck. All the time. So maybe headquarters wants to continue to advertise the way they do so that when people push it they are still with in regulation. People always bring in 4 oz liquids and they say, "but its only 4oz". But its only 4 oz, really, wrong answer!"
The wrong answer, of course, is your own answer of "who cares." People who care about security and liberty care. People who care about the responsible use of their tax monies care. The TSA policy is 3.4 ounces, yet all of TSA's signage continues to claim that the limit is 3 ounces. TSA is using our tax money to lie to us about its own policy -- a policy which is itself based on the lie that there is any danger whatsoever from "liquid explosives." Perhaps you enjoy being lied to. I do not.
"ID checking is not violating any law. Get over it, everyone! The TSA has the right to compare your government ID to your ticket."
We will not "get over" a pointless policy that does nothing but waste time. ID checks do nothing to enhance security, as TSA's refusal to address repeated questions clearly demonstrates. Again, perhaps you don't mind wasting taxpayers' time and money with measures that do nothing to make anyone safer. I do not.
January 28, 2009 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...
ID checking is not violating any law. Get over it, everyone! The TSA has the right to compare your government ID to your ticket. But keep whining about it, it might get you somewhere!
Prove it.
I have stated my case numerous times and asked the TSA lawyers to explain how they can reconcile it with the law THEY have written. Up to this point they have FAILED.
Unless you can prove it, you are also speaking out of your hat.
January 28, 2009 1:55 AM
Anonymous writes:
The 3-1-1 who cares! So you can really have 3.4, but it is advertised 3.
I'll tell you why I care: TSA asked me to care. Passengers are specifically asked to "become an active partner in your security experience by knowing the rules and carefully packing your carry-on bags."
So, I trust TSA to tell me what the rules are. But TSA says two different things. The TSA bloggers here say the limit is 100ml (3.4oz). The TSA website says the limit is 3oz. Who should I trust?
Yes, arguing about 0.4oz of liquid is a little silly. But if TSA can't put out a consistent message on this simple issue, how am I supposed to trust the rest of the rules on the TSA website? How do I know what rules are wrong, or superceded, or just plain missing?
What actions have been taken to safeguard luggage. I don't think that airport employees are interviewed by psychics. If there is a bad person in the crowd thats unfortunate, but there is really no way to tell that. There could always be cameras added but what about when the person steps out of the view of the camera. No person can be watched 24/7.
Exactly. And if TSA allowed me to lock my luggage, I'd have much less to worry about. But since TSA requires me to leave my luggage unlocked, TSA bears some responsibility for creating a situation which makes theft easier.
January 28, 2009 10:04 AM
Ewww. A bunch of questions that have been answered a hundred times.
The 3-1-1 who cares! So you can really have 3.4, but it is advertised 3. Maybe it is because people like to push their luck. All the time. So maybe headquarters wants to continue to advertise the way they do so that when people push it they are still with in regulation. People always bring in 4 oz liquids and they say, "but its only 4oz". But its only 4 oz, really, wrong answer!
I care because it has to do with honesty and integrity. Both of which are sorely missing from TSA and its employees.
From your response I take it that not being truthful with the public is ok.
ID checking is not violating any law. Get over it, everyone! The TSA has the right to compare your government ID to your ticket. But keep whining about it, it might get you somewhere!
Yes it is, only the aircraft operator is charged with checking ID.
You know as well as everyone else who compains constantly about this junk that cash can not be used as a weapon. I know that it has been answered before so I am not going to waist my time. There are cash regulations, and weather they are TSA regulations or not, they will enforce the rules of other agencies. If that means asking a few questions then so be it. TSA is not finding money in bags and putting people in a headlock while they count out all of the currency!
If money cannot be used as a weapon then TSA is waisting valuable resources checking for any amount of cash. It is not TSA's job to control cash. No legislation tasks TSA with currency control. In fact doing so violates the legislation that permits TSA to check only for Weapons, Explosives and Incendiaries.
What actions have been taken to safeguard luggage. I don't think that airport employees are interviewed by psychics. If there is a bad person in the crowd thats unfortunate, but there is really no way to tell that. There could always be cameras added but what about when the person steps out of the view of the camera. No person can be watched 24/7.
The answer to this question goes back to answer #1, honesty and integrity.
TSA knows that checked luggage is subject to being tampered with.
TSA knows that contraband could be placed in checked luggage.
TSA knows that its employees along with other airport workers have stolen from checked luggage.
A sensable person would take steps to counter these weaknesses. Has TSA done anything to mitigate these problems? It seems not!
Lastly, since you failed to demonstrate in any way that you hold a postition making you a spokesperson for TSA I would discount your answers.
What makes you an expert on these topics?
...........................
January 28, 2009 10:18 AM
Anonymous @ "What actions have been taken to safeguard luggage. I don't think that airport employees are interviewed by psychics. If there is a bad person in the crowd thats unfortunate, but there is really no way to tell that. There could always be cameras added but what about when the person steps out of the view of the camera. No person can be watched 24/7."
############################
But we are asked to believe that the BDO training gives the TSA folks the incredible psychic ability to detect the bad person in a crowd of 2,000,000 people per day.
I don't believe it. -- If your BDOs can credibly find terrorists mixed in with the 2,000,000 passengers per day, they can surely detect the theives working in the airport. If, as you say, it is impossible to do that, don't try to tell me that BDOs will do a good job detecting a 1-in-a-billion terrorist.
TSA can't have it both ways. Step up or shut up.
January 28, 2009 12:05 PM
From Thomas
I know that I have had casual discussion on the safest seats, etc, while on-board an airliner, I suspect even you, Anonymous #542, may have said things similar.
Your and my only saving grace is that WE do not look or sound like THEM...
True but I guess airport officials were playing it better safe than sorry? Thanx for giving me a name!
January 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Trollkiller said...
As long as we are expanding the technology of the Blog I would like to see a virtual round table or live chat Q & A on a fairly regular basis. Once every quarter would be great.
An open chat with TSA! One of the best ideas I have seen! The secret shopper idea with some backbone is a good idea too. But let us touch on this live chat. The live chat can help clarify things more quickly and more specifically and people will not have to wait so long for an answer they are looking for. After the chat you can place somewhere the "minutes" of the live chat. Open up a Q&A page and place on it questions and answers from the live chat. The only problem is that some questions may not have immediate answers due to not having every TSA person there with the expertise of everything TSA is involved with. For example you ask a question that no one on the chat can answer and they can not give an answer cause they are unsure it is SSI. The TSA in this live chat could in a sense hide behind that.
January 28, 2009 12:11 PM
@Anonymous: ID checking is not violating any law. Get over it, everyone! The TSA has the right to compare your government ID to your ticket.
If the TSA has the right to compare my government ID to my ticket, then I have the right to ask Why. It is not at all apparent to me how a "layer" involving the mindless comparison of a boarding pass to a driving licence or passport achieves anything. The agents make an impressive show of scrutinizing the identity document; but they don't actually do anything with the information, such as looking up the name in a database of Evil People. I thus do not see how this so-called "identity verification" offers any plausible security benefit.
Conversely, the disadvantages and difficulties are immediately apparent. This "layer" requires extra time and an extra queue for every passenger (which creates another easy opportunity for suicide bombers). It creates an extra opportunity for a harried passenger already juggling kids, carry-ons, and perhaps Freedom Baggies to lose or misplace something, including one or both of the documents. It requires extra care and precision in creating the booking to ensure that the name exactly matches the identity document, and creates extra difficulty in the event of even a slight error. And it promotes public acceptance of a "papers please" mentality that facilitates the introduction of measures that genuinely do intrude on civil liberties, should an authoritarian-minded regime decide to do that (I would not be surprised if that were actually the main intent of this "layer").
So from the perspective of a confused passenger, this "identify verification layer" is nothing more than a "pain point" that has no apparent benefit. It's one of many TSA procedures that, when subjected to even a moment's thought or analysis (what else are we supposed to do while we wait for screening?), are incomprehensible, arbitrary, and visibly pointless. So even if you who defend the TSA call it "whining," I have to ask the honest, legitimate question: Why is the TSA doing this? And what are we actually getting for the obvious inconvenience this is causing millions of us every day?
When so much of what the TSA does looks pointless, that makes it difficult to accept the sort of non-answers the TSA provides in response to honest, legitimate questions. Kip's double-talk about "layers" doesn't explain why so many of those "layers" (such as the identity verification) are clearly pointless. Did he really mean that if you put passengers through a sufficient number of pointless wickets, some kind of synergy happens that magically transforms it all into effective security? Nor does it work to tell us "It's all very effective, but the reason for it is classified so you'll just have to trust us." That might work at first, but not when all questions get answered with "it's a secret."
As a citizen, I merely want to be assured that the TSA provides effective security that is no more intrusive or inconvenient than necessary. Thus, if it is not possible to provide an unclassified explanation for apparently pointless measures like the "identity verification," then I want someone outside the TSA with the appropriate clearance to provide the necessary oversight to make sure that it really is necessary and effective. If it's nothing more than pointless Security Theatre, I want it discontinued! Yes, that's asking a lot. But the TSA is spending our money and our time, and we have the obligation to demand that it's not going to waste. The lack of any such accountability is one important reason the TSA has such a credibility problem with the public.
January 28, 2009 2:59 PM
An open chat with TSA! One of the best ideas I have seen! The secret shopper idea with some backbone is a good idea too. But let us touch on this live chat. The live chat can help clarify things more quickly and more specifically and people will not have to wait so long for an answer they are looking for. After the chat you can place somewhere the "minutes" of the live chat. Open up a Q&A page and place on it questions and answers from the live chat. The only problem is that some questions may not have immediate answers due to not having every TSA person there with the expertise of everything TSA is involved with. For example you ask a question that no one on the chat can answer and they can not give an answer cause they are unsure it is SSI. The TSA in this live chat could in a sense hide behind that.
January 28, 2009 12:11 PM
I like the idea of a live chat with TSA experts.
If an answer to a question was unknown the responsibile thing to do is to state, "I don't know, but I will get an answer and get back to you ..."
As long as the question was answered in a timely matter I think all would be happyy. If the answer was sensative then say why the answer is sensative and close out the question.
This chat idea holds promise of being what this blog should have been from the beginning.
January 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Anonymous #542 writes:
True but I guess airport officials were playing it better safe than sorry?
Then I suppose that TSA should pass a rule that requires all passengers to fly naked. After all, it's entirely possible that someone could be hiding a weapon in their clothing, and better safe than sorry, right?
Ok, that was a little snarky. But there's a popular misconception that "safety" is a binary property ... either a given flight is safe, or it's not. This is a fallacy. Safety is a continuum. You can have scenarios that are "more safe", or "less safe". And so the question becomes, what level of safety do we desire, and at what "cost"? (Note that by "cost", I'm not just talking about the money spent, but the cost in terms of loss of personal liberty.)
Here, the aircraft operator made a choice to trade-off the civil rights of their passengers in the name of making the flight safer. (A choice which, incidentally, they apologized for after the fact.)
Not every action undertaken in the name of "security" is justified. Some are too costly. Now, exactly *which* of those are too costly is a matter for reasonable people to debate.
January 28, 2009 10:08 PM
RB wrote:
This chat idea holds promise of being what this blog should have been from the beginning.
I like the idea of the chat system, myself. I'd totally drop in from time to time (probably every day, actually~) and say hi, try to answer some questions that are within the scope of my expertise.
Which, sadly, hasn't been very often here on the blog lately. Most of the questions that people want answers to go WAAAAY over my paygrade and capability to answer.
(BTW, just because it amused me - the random letter mix-up word verification thing came out to perfectly say "pants" for me for this comment :D )
January 28, 2009 11:20 PM
True but I guess airport officials were playing it better safe than sorry?
Oh, so if you are a brown person, it is better to be safe than sorry.
But if you are a white person, well, it is just casual conversation.
January 29, 2009 12:53 AM
Anonymous #542 warmed up his keyboard and blogged:
"True but I guess airport officials were playing it better safe than sorry?"
While Irish recalls a speech from the 50's:
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men."
Irish
January 29, 2009 1:20 AM
RB said...
TSA knows that its employees along with other airport workers have stolen from checked luggage.
A sensable person would take steps to counter these weaknesses. Has TSA done anything to mitigate these problems? It seems not!
Not trying to get in the middle of the flame war. Just wanted to point out that TSA takes employee screening very seriously.
If you would like to read about the feasibility of 100% employee screening here is a GAO report (public copy)(pdf warning).
Just because every other blog post is not about employee screening doesn't mean there is nothing going on.
Once again, I am not trying to enter the flame war and I am not choosing sides.
Should be a good read. Enjoy
-H2H
January 29, 2009 2:46 AM
In reference to someone else's comment about TSA's ID policy, someone anonymously wrote:
"We will not `get over' a pointless policy that does nothing but waste time."
Wasting time is the least of what the policy does. TSA's policy, that of preventing people from traveling within their own country by the only means that is feasible in many cases (commercial air) unless they identify themselves (by showing their papers or by verbally identifying themselves and undergoing a special interrogation) and receive permission to proceed, does far more than waste time. It makes us less free. It allows our government to target people whom someone within our government doesn't like and restrict those people's freedom of movement. TSA readily admits that the purpose of the ID check is to facilitate restricting people's movement based on blacklists. It is not needed in order to restrict the movement of criminals; judges already had that ability.
TSA's ID policy means, in effect, that we are not truly free to move and associate. It's as simple as that. We should not give up this important freedom.
Paraphrasing words of The Identity Project: No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 29, 2009 3:57 AM
Anonymous said...
J.H C. Trollkiller - I leave this thing for a few months and you are still pi---- and moaning when I return, kind of like a one man 24/7 Air America.
Maybe except I get better ratings. I would prefer to think of myself as Radio Free America.
Until the TSA straightens up and flies right you can expect to find me hear beating the drums of discontent.
Now just supposed the USSS made no effort to secure the event and just suppose something would have happened. Would you be one of the first to demand those worthless federal employees whose job it was to secure the event be investigated, fired, and then maybe even burned? I certainly do not think TSA is the answer to everything and/or the government is the cure for even less but at least I attempt to find a silver lining once in a while.
The security is the SS's responsibility. So to answer your question yes I would call for their heads if they messed up. I think you need to re-read my comment as you missed the point that it does not matter what agency's budget the TSA pay came from the tax payer is the one footing the bill. They are not only footing the bill for those that worked the event but for those that got overtime to cover for those working the event.
As for your point, why don't you take it to the USSS blog as they are 100% responsible for the protection of the president? Oh, I forgot, maybe it is because they don't care enough about yours or anyone else's opinion to have a blog or even a suggestion box.
Please read Kip's last post to see what I think of this Blog and the leader that allowed it to be created. I think you will be surprised.
Well, off for another few months. Hang in there Blogger Bob. You seem to have a loyal following of opinionated nay sayers.
I will see you when you get back.
Blogger Bob hangs in pretty good and you are right he does have a loyal following, I don't think this Blog would be half of what it is without HIS hard work and dedication.
BTW I am NOT Anonymous Trollkiller, I am THE Trollkiller. Now bow before me.
January 29, 2009 4:42 AM
happy to Help said in part....
Not trying to get in the middle of the flame war. Just wanted to point out that TSA takes employee screening very seriously.
.........................
Dos TSA take employee screening seriously? I don't think so!
TSA opposed 100% screening of airport workers for several reason, mostly being to hard and to expensive.
The document you referenced also was only concerned with TSA screening airport workers who are not TSA employees. Who is screening TSO's? No one!!
Another point I picked out was that the BDO's should be looking at airport workers and travelers alike, so how many BDO's are assigned to non-passenger areas of airports.
Nothing in the reports restricts the ability of any number of people to pilfer checked luggage.
No one it seems is checking people departing the secure areas for items that may have been stolen.
Baggage is not maintained in a secure manner after the traveler gives airline/TSA employees custody of their property.
What kind of security system would allow for this large of a security defect to go unanswered?
Apparently TSA!
January 29, 2009 11:17 AM
TK rightly said:
"Until the TSA straightens up and flies right you can expect to find me hear beating the drums of discontent."
The American public has the right to expect professional behavior in all of its government employees.
Anonymous blurted:
"Now just supposed the USSS made no effort to secure the event and just suppose something would have happened. Would you be one of the first to demand those worthless federal employees whose job it was to secure the event be investigated, fired, and then maybe even burned? I certainly do not think TSA is the answer to everything and/or the government is the cure for even less but at least I attempt to find a silver lining once in a while."
I'm going to suggest that you consider writing the disclaimer section of insurance contracts as a career. Otherwise, good luck on your hunt for silver linings.
January 29, 2009 11:19 AM
I don't know about the "live chat with experts" idea--Aren't the TSA experts some wishful-thinking sorts that think if you add enough defective layers to the process they'll make terrorist nervous enough to give themselves up to BDOs?
And besides that, everything they do is carefully planned (as in Inspector Clouseau's planning) SSI, so they can't chat about it.
January 29, 2009 12:52 PM
RB said...
No one it seems is checking people departing the secure areas for items that may have been stolen.
Doesn't this go against your argument “If someone can slip something out of a bag then they can slip a bad item in that same bag as well.”(a really good argument I might add) Searching employees on the way out doesn't fit that.
TSA opposed 100% screening of airport workers for several reason, mostly being to hard and to expensive.
Maybe you should take a different route on that. Try getting legislation at the state level. You could get county workers to check employee bags(as they leave secured area's) instead of federal workers performing screening functions.
Dos TSA take employee screening seriously? I don't think so!
I'm sorry you feel that way.
-H2H
January 31, 2009 4:04 PM
To the anonymous person who says no threat exsist.
Do you believe TSA pulls these things from the sky? Or that they all sit in the room and say "How could we make traveling more stressful for they flying public?"?
Do you believe that they enjoy the constant gripes recieved daily about the screening process from travelers although, you say, there is no threat??
Were you living underground and maybe not hear of the terrorist act of Sept 11 2001 where the threat was carried out succesfully I might add?
Or the several attempts thereafter posing a THREAT to security?
TSA is well aware that 99% of the traveling public is not ill intentioned. It is their job to spot those who are.
Have You never Heard of "better safe than sorry"?
Do you truly believe that, if given the chance,terrorist of any nature would not prey on weakness?
Wake up please.. dont be naive there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT.
January 31, 2009 7:14 PM
Dunstan said...
TK rightly said:
"Until the TSA straightens up and flies right you can expect to find me hear beating the drums of discontent."
Aw man you could have at least fixed my typo.
February 1, 2009 5:02 AM
On the live chat idea what I envision is a limited number of posters asking the expert about one particular topic. I want to limit the posters simply for logistics sake.
If it is a truly open chat then the important or hard questions can be glossed over and ignored. The expert will feel ganged up on and won't supply good answers.
I want it to be more like a conversation, they can make a point and then the posters can make a counter point.
February 1, 2009 5:10 AM
I don't know about the "live chat with experts" idea--Aren't the TSA experts some wishful-thinking sorts that think if you add enough defective layers to the process they'll make terrorist nervous enough to give themselves up to BDOs?
And besides that, everything they do is carefully planned (as in Inspector Clouseau's planning) SSI, so they can't chat about it.
It is easier to answer a question in a different way that did not meet reader's expectations during a live chat than with blogging. Yes they can hide behind the SSI statement but we could also have the live chat with more TSA officials other than just Blogger Bob.
February 1, 2009 12:15 PM
Trollkiller said...
On the live chat idea what I envision is a limited number of posters asking the expert about one particular topic. I want to limit the posters simply for logistics sake.
If it is a truly open chat then the important or hard questions can be glossed over and ignored. The expert will feel ganged up on and won't supply good answers.
I want it to be more like a conversation, they can make a point and then the posters can make a counter point.
February 1, 2009 5:10 AM
.......................
Not to sure I agree with you on this one TK.
Who would select the person(s) asking the questions?
I kinda feel my questions are as important the anyone elses.
I understand the the forum would have to be limited but all voices need to be heard.
Needs some work before rolling anything like this out.
February 2, 2009 3:38 PM
HappyToHelp said...
RB said...
No one it seems is checking people departing the secure areas for items that may have been stolen.
Doesn't this go against your argument “If someone can slip something out of a bag then they can slip a bad item in that same bag as well.”(a really good argument I might add) Searching employees on the way out doesn't fit that.
Until TSA secures checked baggage from the time the traveler gives the bag to any airport worker until they retrieve the bag then all workers exiting the secure area need to be screened.
TSA opposed 100% screening of airport workers for several reason, mostly being to hard and to expensive.
Maybe you should take a different route on that. Try getting legislation at the state level. You could get county workers to check employee bags(as they leave secured area's) instead of federal workers performing screening functions.
Why shouldn't TSA just do the job they are tasked with? No additional legislation is needed.
All people entering the secure area of an airport needs to be screened. Saying it is to hard or to expensive was the TSA cop out.
Dos TSA take employee screening seriously? I don't think so!
I'm sorry you feel that way.
-H2H
I don't understand why you would be sorry. TSA made the decision to not screen everyone who enters the secure area. How could anyone believe TSA is really concerned with security when they don't take reasonable steps to secure the airport? TSA security has holes in it big enough to fly a B747 through.
February 2, 2009 3:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
Have You never Heard of "better safe than sorry"?
Who says that you have to choose one or the other?
Safety isn't a binary condition; you can't say "this flight is safe" or "this flight is not safe". Everything is about degrees of safety; for example, prohibiting weapons on board aircraft makes it less likely that an incident will happen, but doesn't eliminate the threat of a violent incident entirely.
If "better safe than sorry" is the standard, then we should require all passengers to submit to a strip search, complete with body cavity examination, prior to boarding the plane, and have their clothing replaced with standard issue jumpsuits. Once aboard the plane, the passengers should be secured with handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains, as well as their seatbelts. This is the way that "Con Air" flies ... and better safe than sorry, right?
Obviously, I'm not serious in suggesting this, and neither is anyone else. But every security procedure is a trade-off between security and freedom. The debate in which we are engaged here deals with where those trade-offs should be made. And on that point, reasonable people can disagree.
February 2, 2009 4:50 PM
RB said...
Not to sure I agree with you on this one TK.
Who would select the person(s) asking the questions?
I kinda feel my questions are as important the anyone elses.
I understand the forum would have to be limited but all voices need to be heard.
Needs some work before rolling anything like this out.
Basically I have a very selfish motive for this. I want to go head to head with a TSA lawyer over IDs.
I know others want to go head to head with the "experts" in their particular areas of concerns.
I think we can trust Blogger Bob to fairly pick regular posters that have a particular gripe or we can create a poll to pick the “citizen panel” on each topic.
I just know if it is a free for all chat the questions will be coming so hard and fast nobody will be able to get a satisfactory answer.
February 2, 2009 7:25 PM
HappyToHelp said...
Doesn't this go against your argument “If someone can slip something out of a bag then they can slip a bad item in that same bag as well.”(a really good argument I might add) Searching employees on the way out doesn't fit that.
That does not go against RB's argument at all. In fact with all the theft it should have been SOP all along.
A TSO thief could also pocket an item left at the x-ray or dropped on the floor.
Bags still need to be secured not only from TSO thieves but airline/airport thieves, drug and weapon smugglers as well as terrorists.
BTW my answer to your ID post is up. I think it was delayed due to the game.
February 2, 2009 7:34 PM
Posted on this thread for lack of a better place.
Bob, the following message was received from the TSA Contact Center. Seems to disagree with what has been stated on this blog.
So what is the skinny? Is this accurate?
Does anyone at TSA really know what the rule is?
Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
Air carriers are responsible for identifying passengers, controlling passengers to checkpoints, controlling gate access, and controlling baggage before and after screening. TSA employees are responsible for all passenger and baggage screening to ensure that prohibited items are not placed on board aircraft. TSA consults regularly with its various partners to effectively integrate their respective security responsibilities.
Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts.
Passengers traveling on an international flight from Europe or other foreign countries into the United States, the 3.4 oz containers in the zip lock bag will be accepted in carry on and will not be confiscated at the checkpoint.
Those passengers traveling from the United States into a foreign country or traveling on a domestic flight within the United States must carry the 3.0 oz containers as carry on in a zip lock bag.
We encourage you to visit our website at www.tsa.gov for additional information about TSA. We continue to add new information and encourage you to check the website frequently for updated information.
TSA Contact Center
February 2, 2009 10:48 PM
TK said...
"A TSO thief could also pocket an item left at the x-ray or dropped on the floor."
This only applies to the issue of bad Transportation Security Officers. The same bad apple knows all modern screening techniques and equipment vulnerabilities. I think your asking for a bandaid sir.
As far as thievery from other sources. I don't think TSA should take up that responsibility. I'm all for keeping non TSA personnel(ie airport staff) from putting bad things into bags but I believe Airport Operations and local Law Enforcement should be taking the lead on airport thefts.
Keep in mind that TSA has always had a ZERO tolerance when it come to employee thievery. I would like to mention that everything I've read about 100% employee screening has not included exit screening. If anyone here has more specific information about exit screening could they please post(would be nice to have someone more familiar with the subject posting on the issue). It would also be nice to hear someone post from the private sector who does employee exit screening.
BTW my answer to your ID post is up. I think it was delayed due to the game.
To TK: Will post my response sometime Friday morning.
-H2H
February 3, 2009 5:23 PM
RB said...
Posted on this thread for lack of a better place.
Bob, the following message was received from the TSA Contact Center. Seems to disagree with what has been stated on this blog.
So what is the skinny? Is this accurate?
Does anyone at TSA really know what the rule is?
Thank you for your email message concerning TSA's 3-Ounce Rule.
.............................
Bob, are you going to do the expected and ignore questions about the TSA Contact Centers response?
How do you reconcile what has been posted on this blog and the TSA Contact Center.
Who is telling the truth?
Why am I not surprised?
Can TSA speak with one voice?
February 4, 2009 10:28 AM
HappyToHelp said...
As far as thievery from other sources. I don't think TSA should take up that responsibility. I'm all for keeping non TSA personnel(ie airport staff) from putting bad things into bags but I believe Airport Operations and local Law Enforcement should be taking the lead on airport thefts.
If TSA is going to take custody of my possessions at a checkpoint, then TSA is responsible for the safety of my possessions until they hand them back to me, safe and intact.
If TSA is going to open or damage the flimsy TSA-approved lock I put on my checked luggage, then TSA is responsible for the safety of my luggage until it is delivered back to me, safe and intact. That may seem extreme, but I’d like to point out that the surveillance necessary to really assure true security of cargo and baggage would solve that problem.
Irish
February 5, 2009 9:18 AM
RB said, quoting the TSA Contact Center ...
"Those passengers traveling from the United States into a foreign country or traveling on a domestic flight within the United States must carry the 3.0 oz containers as carry on in a zip lock bag."
Gee, Blogger Bob, is your face red? No answer yet? It’s been two days. If this issue was as clear-cut as you presented it, it should have at last been addressed by now.
Irish
February 5, 2009 9:20 AM
Irish said...
If TSA is going to take custody of my possessions at a checkpoint, then TSA is responsible for the safety of my possessions until they hand them back to me, safe and intact.
Most airports I have flown out of has the airlines take my baggage NOT the TSA. So the airlines should be responsible after the TSA check.
February 6, 2009 11:16 AM
Bob, are you going to do the expected and ignore questions about the TSA Contact Centers response?
How do you reconcile what has been posted on this blog and the TSA Contact Center.
Who is telling the truth?
Why am I not surprised?
Can TSA speak with one voice?
February 4, 2009 10:28 AM
.............................
Bob, you ready to come out hiding and face the public?
What, you have nothing to say?
So much for engaging the public!
February 6, 2009 11:22 AM
Anonymous #542 said...
“Irish said...
‘If TSA is going to take custody of my possessions at a checkpoint, then TSA is responsible for the
safety of my possessions until they hand them back to me, safe and intact.’
Most airports I have flown out of has the airlines take my baggage NOT the TSA. So the airlines
should be responsible after the TSA check.”
Really, Anonymous542? The airlines take your baggage at a TSA checkpoint? I’ve never seen
anything like that. Who takes your carry-on possessions at the TSA checkpoint? Perhaps you
should read the original questions again.
Irish
February 6, 2009 3:26 PM
A previous comment I made way back in November on that same subject, Irish, that was also not responded to by any TSA representative. My comment directly quotes the U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), the investigative arm of Congress...
________________
Since a new sign, designed and printed very recently, is shown as an example in this post...
The limitation on "liquids, gels, and aerosols was officially changed from 3.0 fluid ounces to 3.4 fluid ounces (100ml) per container as of 21NOV2006
________________
Procedures
November 21, 2006: Same as the procedures implemented on
September 26, 2006, with the exception of the following:
Liquids, gels, and aerosols allowed in 3.4-fluid-ounce (100-milliliter) “travel
size” bottles.
________________
From: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07634.pdf (page 26)
(1) Why do the newly printed signs and the information on the TSA web pages still reflect the 3.0 fluid ounce limit?
(2) Why do TSOs still confiscate (let's not play word games) toothpaste clearly under 3.4 fluid ounces in size because they weigh more then 3.4 ounces? Can we get some directives or training here?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
November 12, 2008 4:36 PM
________________
February 6, 2009 4:12 PM
Bob, are you going to do the expected and ignore questions about the TSA Contact Centers response?
How do you reconcile what has been posted on this blog and the TSA Contact Center.
Who is telling the truth?
Why am I not surprised?
Can TSA speak with one voice?
February 4, 2009 10:28 AM
.......................
Bob, I have offered you ample opportunity to respond to the message the TSA Contact Center sent me.
Guess we will have to do this much the same as the $10k problem.
February 6, 2009 7:19 PM
"(2) Why do TSOs still confiscate (let's not play word games) toothpaste clearly under 3.4 fluid ounces in size because they weigh more then 3.4 ounces? Can we get some directives or training here?
Tom (1 of 5-6)"
Over time, Tom, I've become convinced that understanding the difference between a fluid ounce and an avoirdupois ounce seems to be beyond the abilities of many TSO's -- at least many of the ones I've come in contact with. [sigh]
Irish
(who knows her weights and measures)
February 7, 2009 10:47 AM
Irish said...
Really, Anonymous542? The airlines take your baggage at a TSA checkpoint? I’ve never seen
anything like that. Who takes your carry-on possessions at the TSA checkpoint? Perhaps you
should read the original questions again.
So I assumed we were talking about checked baggage because you were talking about "control" after the TSA check. If it is carry-on obviously your bags are in your control after the TSA check. I said that because of the argument "Who is to make sure your baggage is secure when it is out of your control" ... I say the airlines because they take my baggage and give it to the TSA.. then the TSA gives it back to the airlines to put on the plane. It is an airlines problem! Everyone is responsible for securing the baggage NOT just TSA.
February 7, 2009 11:42 AM
Anonymous #542 said...
"So I assumed we were talking about checked baggage because you were talking about "control" after the TSA check. If it is carry-on obviously your bags are in your control after the TSA check. I said that because of the argument "Who is to make sure your baggage is secure when it is out of your control" ... I say the airlines because they take my baggage and give it to the TSA.. then the TSA gives it back to the airlines to put on the plane. It is an airlines problem! Everyone is responsible for securing the baggage NOT just TSA."
Okey dokey. :o)
Problems at the checkpoint usually arise when the individual ahead of me holds up the line for some reason, and there I am . . . watching my carry-ons glide on by to places where 1) I can’t always keep an eye on them, and 2) can’t get to them even if I see someone taking them. Someone needs to be responsible for my belongings until we reconnect – and that someone is TSA.
As far as checked luggage is concerned – first, for reasons that simply baffle me, the ONLY TSA-approved locks I’ve ever been able to find are flimsy enough to break open with a can-opener. As long as TSA has the master key or master combination, what on earth is the reason that I can’t buy a lock sturdy enough to secure Ft Knox if I want to? As long as I can only buy these dime store locks, I hold TSA responsible.
Second, if TSA opens my checked luggage and leaves me a little love note, then they’re responsible to secure it. If they don’t secure it, then they’re responsible until we’re reunited at destination. “We couldn’t find the key” doesn’t cut it. I have a fist full of keys, and I’ve never lost even one. There is a separate fist full of keys for my offices, duplicates that building security hands off from one shift to the next, and they’ve never lost even one. Query here: why don’t they have two keys on separate key fobs in a secure place just in case they lose one? If TSA’s employees can’t hang onto a set of keys, they’re hardly competent to be providing security.
Third, the type of surveillance necessary to provide true security of checked baggage and cargo would solve the whole “checked luggage” issue – because a piece of luggage would NEVER be out of camera range from the second it passes through the airline flaps to the second it slides down onto the carousel. (Think about how Las Vegas secures cash.) Then, we could pin responsibility precisely. I’ll have to repeat the Mantra: If some bad guy has the opportunity to take something OUT, then some bad guy has the opportunity to put something IN. It’s TSA’s JOB to make sure that doesn’t happen. Until they do their job, then they’re responsible for the consequences of NOT doing their job.
Irish
February 9, 2009 5:59 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home