Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

4.28.2008

Checkpoint Evolution Up and Running at BWI: Even More Changes Announced to Reduce Hassle to Passengers

In February, Secretary Chertoff told an editorial board that he had directed TSA to do a sixty-day, no-holds-barred review of what we do at the passenger checkpoint to see if we can weed out things that used to be needed but perhaps today could be stream-lined. This effort ties in with our longer term effort to update our security measures -- to go on offense rather than just wait behind the magnetometer and try to find prohibited items. Today at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), those efforts come together. And, starting today, they become reality.

Here are the ‘greatest hits’ that are in the works:

Airlines may now allow kiosk/at-home printing of boarding passes for almost everyone. Secretary Chertoff challenged TSA to reduce the hassle thousands of passengers have every day when they can’t print a boarding pass online or at an airline kiosk. They have problems not because they pose a threat to aviation, but because their names are the same or similar to someone whose name is really on a watch list and does pose a threat.

Think of it this way: for every actual person on the watch list, there are thousands of people – who don’t pose a threat – but whose name is close enough that they are flagged in the system and not allowed to print their boarding pass. These passengers must go to the ticket counter to resolve the issue by showing photo identification, and it’s a huge inconvenience to them. Many of these ordinary travelers feel that they have been watch-listed, which would make anyone mad.


TSA has asked airlines to create a secure system to accept passengers’ dates of birth, first at the ticket counter and subsequently in their frequent flier or other secure database. Passengers will be encouraged, but not required, to provide airlines with limited identifying information like their date of birth. If they do so once, the airline can clear them on future flights and they will be able to print their boarding passes at home or at the kiosk.

Better ID verification.

A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are. TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity. In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer.

Make the physical layout work for us.

BWI’s “B” Checkpoint has a different look today – it’s the first place to rollout the Checkpoint Evolution elements. We’ve integrated all the elements to work together and get us a calmer checkpoint environment that benefits our active security measures like behavior observation. Easier divesting and bin loading, better light and less noise are examples of things that help security and also lessen hassle for passengers.

We’re excited about these initiatives, because they will improve the passenger’s experience with TSA, but more importantly, they will help our security officers carry out their critical mission. If you fly through BWI, be sure to come back to the blog and let us know what you think.

Click here for more information.

Kip Hawley

Labels: ,

108 Comments:

Anonymous txrus said...

Instead of relying on the airlines & passengers to fix the hopelessly mucked-up 'no fly list' (which currently stands at something like 900K & growing, I believe), why not just scrap it & start over? A good first step would be the inclusion of the 'really bad people' which, by TSA's own admission, are currently excluded from the present 'no fly list' for 'security reasons'. Might also want to take the dead people off, btw.

Should I also point out the fallacy of having a 'no fly list' when those on it have not been arrested, tried, or convicted?

P.S. Still waiting for those frontal MMW pictures, too!

April 28, 2008 10:52 AM

 
OpenID frijole said...

First, let me say that I love this. I really enjoy having a peek into the inner workings of what is always portrayed as such a mysterious and negative service, and seeing that you guys really are working on making it better for everyone is really reassuring (more reassuring than the typical security theater that it seems the TSA is moving away from).

That said, there seems to me to be a fundamental disconnect between the ideology of the TSA and that of the freedoms that make America what it is. Specifically, things like this:
"Passengers will be encouraged, but not required, to provide airlines with limited identifying information like their date of birth. If they do so once, the airline can clear them on future flights and they will be able to print their boarding passes at home or at the kiosk."

Its been established by the Supreme Court that photo ID is not required to travel. As I understand it now, the policy is that non-ID travelers get additional screening. I don't find this that unreasonable, but I have to wonder how far its going to go that people wishing to exercise their right to travel without providing identification are inconvenienced and effectively discriminated against.

April 28, 2008 11:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if I understand the TSA/DHS correctly they want me to share more PII with private firms so I increase my risks of having that PII disclosed to untrusted parties or used for non-security related purposes. Thanks I'll just continue to game the worthless 'you can't check-in online' list with a perfectly legal variation of my name, :-)

April 28, 2008 11:40 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Cleaning up the no-fly list (actually eliminating it and concentrating on getting warrants through the courts to enlist the airlines' help to track people the government is actually interested in tracking) would be a good first step.

The rest of it though is just the soft music and light show that we have already spent so many keystrokes excoriating a few weeks ago. We have read over and over again what needs to happen at the checkpoints to make security truly less of a hassle. Some of my favorites (not all inclusive of course):

1) Get rid of the ridiculous rules that don't make anyone safer (shoes, 3-1-1).

2) Enforce the rules that make sense in an even handed and consistent way across airports.

3) Hire the best and brightest at the checkpoints (i.e. require a bachelors degree or higher or equivalent actual security -- not mall rent-a-cop -- experience), compensate them as the best and brightest. Train them in customer service and security. Allow them to unionize.

4) Recognize that only 1 in 100000 or fewer people they come in contact with is actually a threat to aviation and while they need to be alert for that one, they need to recognize that the people coming through the checkpoint are passengers and not suspects.

5) Eliminate the strip search machine where it has been deployed and deploy no further strip search machines.

April 28, 2008 11:44 AM

 
Blogger Andy said...

Thanks for clarifying on the ID policies on the website. However, there are still a few things that aren't clear to me:

1) Why don't you just state that although ID is recommended to get through security faster, you CAN fly without ID?

2) How about military ID's, university/college ID's, and federal ID's? What if I have a federal ID, yet it doesn't have my gender/date of birth information, but the picture matches the name and it is from a federal organization/agency?

3) When you claim that if we have the wrong ID, or forgot our wallet in the cab, you'd work with us, but that it'd take longer, what exactly do you mean?

April 28, 2008 12:02 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Kip Hawley wrote:

"A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are."

What is the purpose of this watch-list process? Is it to determine which people should be thoroughly screened for dangerous items and which should be allowed to board planes without a thorough screening? Is it to restrict some people's ability to travel?

In the United States, people have a right to travel without interference or monitoring by government.

Based on Congressional Testimony from Fall of 2007 that the United States' "terrorist watch list" was growing by 20,000 names per month, best estimates are that over 900,000 names have been blacklisted. If these people are believed to have committed crimes, then we should arrest them and put them before a judge or jury. If they are not reasonably suspected of having committed crimes, then we should leave them alone.

Hawley continued:

"TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity."

Please provide details. "Trust us" doesn't cut it. Additionally, please reveal the cost of these methods and explain how we will judge their efficacy, and how they contribute to the TSA's goal of improving transportation security.

"In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer."

In other words, if travelers do not present ID, they will be thoroughly screened. Those who do present ID will be allowed to pass through airport security checkpoints with an abbreviated screening.

Clearly, anyone who wishes to carry something dangerous onto a flight -- something that will not be detected by the abbreviated, x-ray-only bag check -- should present ID. If his name is blacklisted, then he should either get a false ID or steal someone else's identity and get a real ID in the other person's name.

Mr. Hawley: Even assuming that government agents can consistently and accurately determine travelers' names, how can identification of someone possibly help determine whether he is carrying something that would pose a danger to others if he carried it aboard a flight?

April 28, 2008 12:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winstonsmith.. You do not know real security. What you ask for the public is not ready for. Go to Israel and go through their security checkpoints. Then ask yourself, am I ready for this? The TSA does comfortable security compared to some countries.

1. They are a threat so catch up on your research.

2. This is a problem I agree. The rules need to be consistent and TSO's that do not enforce them correctly need to be reprimanded.

3. People that do not have degrees can still learn can't they? If you are taught the correct way and the management keeps enforcement on policies then everything would be ok.

4. I think this is something that could be fixed. Maybe every TSO should be trained as a BDO and have the knowledge of observing behaviors.

5. I think the MMW technology is a good thing and people need to get use to seeing it at checkpoints.

GOOD JOB TSA but you still have things to fix. Better training is needed or aleast more advanced training to every TSO.

April 28, 2008 12:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stood in the "new" security line for over an hour this morning at BWI. First of all, it probably isn't the smartest thing to start any new procedure on a Monday morning. Also, in order to accurately measure the success of the new process, wouldn't it have made sense to open all of the lanes instead of having very long lines. Better planning is definitely a necessity when you are trying new processes. Hopefully the other airports will implement new processes in a much better way.

April 28, 2008 12:17 PM

 
Anonymous Marsha said...

@winstonsmith

TSAs rules are in place for a purpose. The shoe rule and the 311 do add an element of safety.

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

I hate people who like to spit out statistics. Where did you get your numbers? Or did they just pop out of your head.

It's not a strip search machine. The machine does not remove your clothes. The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

April 28, 2008 12:51 PM

 
Anonymous Eric said...

How exactly do these changes reduce checkpoint hassles? I see one that reduces a few online printing hassles, and one that will increase checkpoint hassles by reducing the number of "valid" IDs. Not what I expected from the grand 60-day review.

April 28, 2008 12:56 PM

 
Anonymous marsha said...

edited:forgot the word "not"

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does "not" guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

April 28, 2008 1:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marsha - do you not realize that an x-ray machine CANNOT screen for explosives in a shoe? Of all of the security measures, x-raying shoes is the most pointless one.

April 28, 2008 1:20 PM

 
Blogger Chance said...

Instead of relying on the airlines & passengers to fix the hopelessly mucked-up 'no fly list' (which currently stands at something like 900K & growing, I believe), why not just scrap it & start over?

Though related, the No Fly List is not synnonymous with the terrorism watchlist. They are not one and the same, are not even close to the same size, and TSA does not control or maintain that database. If we were to "start over", the no fly list would end up being substantially the same as the current list.

Here is the link for the TSC, which maintains the U.S. governments consolidated terror watchlist:http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm

Here is the link to a little more info on the no fly list: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/secure_flight.shtm

- Chance EoS blog team.

April 28, 2008 1:24 PM

 
Blogger Chance said...

Sorry, let me try to place that link again. http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm

If this link doesn't work, just google "terrorist screening center".

Chance

April 28, 2008 1:25 PM

 
Anonymous Sandi said...

Aw, where did the puppies go? I so very much liked the cute TSA puppies! And now I can't find them on your webpage!!

I have a suggestion!!! Maybe your cute behaviour detection officers can use some lovable TSA kittens to discover the heartless terrorists!!!! And America would love you for it!!!!!

April 28, 2008 1:30 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Andy wrote:

"Thanks for clarifying on the ID policies on the website. However, there are still a few things that aren't clear to me:

"1) Why don't you just state that although ID is recommended to get through security faster, you CAN fly without ID?"


Good question, Andy.

I'd also like to know why although ID is not required of passengers on U.S. domestic flights, some airports, including Kansas City International, display TSA signs that state that passengers must present photo identification. After I filed a complaint with TSA about this situation, Jeanne Oliver, Associate Director, TSA Office of the Executive Secretariat, wrote to me in response, confirming the lack of ID requirement, but providing no indication that the signs would be corrected.

See also: “Although airport security tells passengers they must show ID to board planes, they really don’t,” Scott Canon and Mike Rice, Kansas City Star, April 9, 2008

April 28, 2008 1:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

April 28, 2008 12:51 PM


Marsha, removing ones garments is quick easy and only takes a moment also but I think you would hesitate to do so to clear airport security.

The MMW WBI reveals a persons intimate details, and is very much like a strip search. This is a complete invasion of a persons privacy and should only be used as a last resort if at all. AS far as being harmless please provide your proof.

If the MMW WBI was as ok as TSA says it is then we would see frontal images from one of these machines.

Proof is in the pudding, TSA will not show the images because they know what the outcome will be when the degree of privacy invasion is known by travelers.

April 28, 2008 1:42 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

marsha said...
"TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does "not" guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college."

Toss in some business travelers, children and housewives, and it sounds like a cross section of the 2 million people treated like criminals and suspected of terrorism on a daily basis, doesn't it.

April 28, 2008 1:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Better ID verification.

A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are. TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity. In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer."

Why don't you come out and tell the truth? The ID requirement is all about instilling fear and a method of controlling the citizens. (the same reason, by the way, that you're issuing tin-badges to the screeners).

After all, the government loses ability to control if their agents don't know who people are.

Heck, even the security agencies admit that many of the "bad guys" aren't even ON the list.

Control. Pure and simple. Shred the Constitution while your at it.

Oh, by the way, it's pretty disingenuous to hold out BWI as an example. It has the rudest, most disrespecting, and abusive screeners of any airport in the US. And TSA airport management that refuses to even acknowledge complaints, much less act on them. Replacing management with CUSTOMER ORIENTED folks will be a good start to making BWI a better place.

April 28, 2008 1:45 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Marsha, let me go through your post point by point:

TSAs rules are in place for a purpose. The shoe rule and the 311 do add an element of safety.

So far there has been no credible evidence brought to the public's attention by the TSA or by any reputable scientific body that says that the 3-1-1 rule has done anything to make anyone any safer. The people who are on trial in London are on trial for conspiring to try to pull off this plot, not for actually succeeding in doing it. 3-1-1 was an overreaction on the part of TSA for what was perceived at the time to be a threat, which has since been discredited (it has been shown conclusively that it would not have been possible actually to do what the people in London were thinking of doing). It is for the TSA to show us that the threat is real through sources that are universally accepted as objective and trustworthy (TSA "scientists" working behind closed doors are not a credible source). Similarly with shoes, when the people at TSA can show us a credible and ongoing threat, we can take them seriously. Until then, they're asking us to take them at their word, and the TSA's word is not worth much these days.

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

Marsha, I think you have missed the point of this entirely. TSO compensation is not high, certainly not commensurate with the compensation an educated or experienced career-oriented person in our country would expect to receive. You brought it out yourself that many of the people you work with are retired (not career oriented), students who are getting their education (not career oriented), military veterans (possibly career oriented). What I'm suggesting here is not that there are not smart, experienced or educated people among the ranks of the TSOs. I'm suggesting that if the TSA is really interested in security that it seeks out the best and the brightest it can find either by virtue of education or actual experience and develop them as career people. Currently the TSA hires part time hourly people for as little as it can and requires no more than a high school diploma and a clean criminal background check. A few weeks back one of the blog regulars posted a link to the TSA employee satisfaction survey that suggested that gave the TSA very less than stellar marks when it came to the way it treats its front-line people in terms of pay, advancement, training, environment -- all of the things that make a person want to develop and hang around. Perhaps you are one of the people who is satisfied with your TSA position. If so, terrific, but that view is not shared by many of your colleagues. href="http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/results.shtm"The survey is available on the TSA website for your viewing pleasure.

I hate people who like to spit out statistics. Where did you get your numbers? Or did they just pop out of your head.

Ok, you got me there. the 1 in 100000 figure is not a bonafide statistic. However that TSA has not caught a single individual with terrorist intent in its entire existence is a documentable fact. That TSA all too frequently misses prohibited items in unchecked baggage is not exactly news to anyone -- including the TSA. If the TSA is claiming extraordinary results, it is up to the TSA to provide extraordinary proof of those results. So far there has been none.

It's not a strip search machine. The machine does not remove your clothes. The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

And whoever was looking at the mmw image got a good look at your nude form. That's a virtual strip search. Sorry Marcia, no other way to spin that. The fact that the person does not physically have to disrobe does not make the strip search any less invasive, nor any more legal (it hasn't been tested yet in the courts, but I'm quite sure this goes way beyond what the original Edwards decision that provided for administrative searches in 1974 had in mind).

April 28, 2008 1:59 PM

 
Anonymous marsha said...

@ anonymous

It's a blurry image of the human form. The screener doesn't even see you. I fail to see the invasion of privacy.

April 28, 2008 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Mr/Ms. Anonymous... you are suggesting that I am not ready for the US to follow the US Constitution? Let's look at what you said:

Winstonsmith.. You do not know real security. What you ask for the public is not ready for. Go to Israel and go through their security checkpoints. Then ask yourself, am I ready for this? The TSA does comfortable security compared to some countries.

The 5th amendment to the constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The no-fly list could be construed as such a limitation on liberty. If the government feels the need to look into your private affairs (including your travel arrangements) it needs to obtain a warrant from the court to do so. If it does not there is something very wrong going on (and alas, I fear that may well be the case in this day and age, but that is a can of worms I'm not going to open here). I have traveled all over the world and experienced security in different countries both pre and post 9/11. In no country that I have been in outside than the United States has security been so poorly managed. I have heard much of Israeli security (although I have not experienced it personally) and from what I understand it is based on things that actually make the planes secure and not on the silly security theater one finds oneself confronted by at our checkpoints. So yes, I personally am ready. I'm not sure what countries you refer to, perhaps you can enlighten us.

1. They (shoes and liquids) are a threat so catch up on your research.

I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware. Would you care to post it and educate all of us? I do not trust the TSA to tell us the truth as so far its track record has been extraordinarily bad. If some independent scientific body were to come out and give a stamp of approval to the 3-1-1 policy I might take it a little more seriously. Until then, however, it is an inconvenient rule that I live with and can't wait to see go away. Same with shoes. Show me independent proof that there is an ongoing and credible threat and you'll have a convert in me. Until then, you'll have a compliant, if disgruntled frequent traveler.

2. This is a problem I agree. The rules need to be consistent and TSO's that do not enforce them correctly need to be reprimanded.

At least we can agree on something.

3. People that do not have degrees can still learn can't they? If you are taught the correct way and the management keeps enforcement on policies then everything would be ok.

You are absolutely correct. A degree is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. My point in making this statement is that the TSA is not recruiting career oriented people. It is treating the TSO position as a revolving door job. There are some very good people who take that job and some hang around, but quite a few don't. And with TSA's pay scale, there is some truth to the saying that "you get what you pay for." (reminds me of a post by a TSO who says he cleared 90k some time back... makes me wonder just how much OT the poor guy had to work -- did he ever see the outside of an airport?)

4. I think this is something that could be fixed. Maybe every TSO should be trained as a BDO and have the knowledge of observing behaviors.

You may have something there. Perhaps there could be some elementary BDO training incorporated into basic TSO training. I have a feeling, however, that what the BDOs do is highly specialized and requires training that goes far beyond what the TSA is likely to provide to the average TSO. I actually support the BDO program though. It is one of the very few good ideas the TSA has come up with and implemented.

5. I think the MMW technology is a good thing and people need to get use to seeing it at checkpoints.

You and I can agree to disagree on this one. You think it's a good thing. I think it's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. I'm quite confident that as people become aware of the nature of the MMW that the debate on its use in this country is just beginning and if you think that the comments on this forum have been divisive and ugly, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

April 28, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Anonymous Alan said...

It looks like Secretary Chertoff wants people to have the permission of the federal government in order to travel.

This is starting to look like East Germany before the wall came down.

April 28, 2008 2:46 PM

 
Anonymous Sandi said...

I suppose my suggestion about using cute kittens to help unmask heartless terrorists wasn't respectful enough to keep it from getting ground-up in the delete-o-meter.

If you don't think that that would help your BDOs find evil people, then maybe kittens could help with making the passengers feel less hassled. I suggest that the TSOs that read the TSA signs to passngers would find people less hostile if they held a kitten.

Also: If a potential terrorist can check their status on the no fly list by taking a cheap $69 hop, doesn't it sort of make this layer of security sort of hassle-free?

April 28, 2008 3:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAve there been any long term scientific studies as to the safety of MMW scans? If so can you post links.

Also until you post frontal images you will continue to be accused of virtually strip searching people. And the longer you wait the most it looks like you really are hiding something.

April 28, 2008 3:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the perpetuation of the ID check still fails to completely miss the point.

Verifying ones' identity does NOTHING to verify ones' intent.

As Bruce Schneier summed up extremely well, "I don't care what the person's name is next to me, I care if they want to do something to the airplane... and even if they do I still don't care what their name is."

TSA forgets that nearly all of the perpetrators of 9/11 were travelling on legitimate state-issued identification.

The ID check is just an airline revenue protection measure that has the added bonus of heightening our climate of fear.

April 28, 2008 5:36 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Sandi wrote:

"If a potential terrorist can check their status on the no fly list by taking a cheap $69 hop, doesn't it sort of make this layer of security sort of hassle-free?"

What Sandi described is part of what was described by MIT researchers as "The Carnival Booth Algorithm". In short, potential criminals can probe the system by sending a group of people on innocent trips, observing which ones are subject to additional screening, then send the ones who weren't flagged for additional screening on a terrorist mission.

This is one example of how an ID check is not only ineffective, but also likely to reduce transportation safety.

April 28, 2008 6:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware."
Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well.

April 28, 2008 7:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm
click on it to see what the wave technology images really look like. it looks like an xray. nothing intrusive. it's also an alternative to a pat down.

April 28, 2008 7:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's also an alternative to a pat down."

If a pat-down is not as effective at detecting weapons as a MMW scan, then why would anyone with ill intent choose the MMW scan? All someone would have to do is wear a back brace packed with explosives, choose the pat-down instead of the scan, then get on the plane without a problem. Without being mandatory, MMW technology only scans innocents.

April 28, 2008 8:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary. If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?

April 28, 2008 9:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's proclaim a "No ID day".
It's time Americans put their foot down. If everyone on the declared day, refused to show an ID, it would bring travel to a snail's pace crawl. Then just maybe, we can eliminate some of these ridiculous rules, that we blindly have to follow.

April 29, 2008 12:23 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous critic who is an afficionado of wikipedia who states:

"I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware."
Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well.


Well, the 'recent' liquid bomb plot has been thoroughly debunked. The people in London are on trial for conspiracy. They never managed to make a bomb, test a bomb, get a bomb to the airport, get it past security, or get it onto a plane and put it together in the airport lavatory and blow a plane out of the sky. If the London bomb plot would have worked it would have been horrible to be sure, but the London bomb plot was doomed from the start. The explosive they were attempting to create TATP is too unstable when wet at the temperatures at which they would necessarily be working. Even if they were able to get the component parts all together in the same place, they would not be able to create enough of the explosive that would stay stable long enough to achieve their desired purpose.

The Bojinka plot was a plot that happened 13 odd years ago. While it is true that a Muslim extremist did manage to get a small bomb on a plane and tragically kill one innocent bystander, the very article you cite states that the extremist group abandoned the plan because the plot was discovered by law enforcement and because the nitroglycerin was too unstable to be relied upon, in fact causing a fire in the apartment where the group was staying in Manila.

So if you're going to cite failed plots as justification for 3-1-1 my friend, you're going to have to do better than this. People plot all kinds of crazy stuff, most of which won't work for various reasons. What I asked for was independent objective scientific corroboration from a non-TSA, non-governmental source, that there was a basis in science for 3-1-1.

Richard Reid poses more of a problem. He had an actual bomb. He was trying to light it. Alert passengers and crew subdued him quickly. I certainly can't imagine that today's crews and passengers would be any less vigilant. The TSA will tell us that people have concealed things (blades, drugs, knives) in their shoes, yet there has not been a documented case before Reid or since of anyone attempting to detonate a shoe bomb.

Similarly there has not been a documented case of an individual removing something from his or her shoe and using it to attempt to hijack a plane. Finally, there is in fact some controversy as to whether x-raying shoes would reveal the presence of explosives to begin with. Again, I'll leave it to a non-TSA, non-governmental independent source to advise whether one can, in fact, detect the presence of explosives in a shoe through an x-ray.

So I'll give you maybe 1/2 credit on Reid, and that only because it really happened once in over 75 years of commercial aviation. Again, however, I asked for an ongoing threat to justify TSA's ongoing actions. In the same way that the people who were in the planning and testing phases for Bojinka gave up because of the logistical impediments inherent to their plan, today's terrorist might see an airliner as an attractive target, but a highly impractical one. A terrorist seeks to draw attention to a cause and can only do it if his action is successful. The TSA is not really capable of preventing bad people from getting on a plane (don't talk to me about id checks, the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID). The people on the plane, however, are no longer likely to sit by passively if someone were to try something.

If a terrorist were, however, determined to attack a plane, it would be likely that the terrorist would choose to go through a US Airport because the TSA has been shown time and time again to be easy to circumvent.

So you suggest that I haven't done my homework. I disagree. I have done my homework. I have come to a conclusion that is the polar opposite to the conclusion you seem to have drawn. I place my faith in history, science and fact. You appear to put your faith in the government and what it chooses to tell you. I feel far more comfortable with my approach.

April 29, 2008 1:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what I'm also wondering:

*Will this change the procedure (e.g: someone doesn't bring ID, the TSA will write down a form with that person's personal information) or will this result in longer delays if someone forgot/refuse to show their ID--or will the procedure of telling them to go to the SSSS line without writing any forms remain the same?

*How can TSA know if someone's 17 or 18? At that age, it's hard to tell, and a 18-year old can pass as a teenager at times - and some 14 year old's can pass as a 21-year old. It depends.

*Will TSA now check each ID and refuse to "approve" the ID if they don't have any one of the following requirements? (For example, if the ID has everything except the gender info)

*UNIVERSITY ID's - what's the scoop?

For once, I'd appreciate a straight answer for EACH question... please.

April 29, 2008 4:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are still waiting for front and back images of millimeter wave and backscatter scans of actual persons (men and women).

Please post these pictures!! We cannot make an informed decision with only a MMW back picture of a man.

The pictures I saw on the web (only parameter I have) show more than I want seen, so unless you post yours, I'll keep my decision to skip the scan. I'll probably be screamed at for my decision, but I am used to that already...

Also, about the list of "dangerous" names: get rid of it. It makes no sense, and has created a horrible life for us innocent persons on it (I have no clue how).

April 29, 2008 4:32 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Re: Bojinka

If the liquids threat was so terribly serious, why was the liquids ban not instituted until 11 years after after that event?


Re: MMW

Anonymous said at 7:52 p.m. (probably the same Anonymous as refereced Bojinka above)

"...images really look like. it looks like an xray. nothing intrusive."

If the MMW is not intrusive, then why is the TSA absolutely refusing to provide us with a frontal image?

I know the answer to that: because they know that when people realize that they will be seen essentially naked in the image, there will be whole scale rebellion.

April 29, 2008 7:06 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well."

Wikipedia is a collective effort and anyone can add to an article. It is more a compilation of fact, opinion, and gossip that a factual account of events. It is not a resource that is reliable.

April 29, 2008 7:53 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

A thought for the day

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who Is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."

H.L. Mencken

April 29, 2008 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous Justin Newman said...

Based on the ID standards described, a FIPS 201-compliant Personal Identity Verification card, issued on the basis of a successful NACI, would not be acceptable. Why is the TSA refusing to honor this universal identifier of federal employees with a higher level of vetting than any state drivers license?

With the convergence of CAC and PIV, how is a military ID acceptable and a PIV card not?

-jbn

April 29, 2008 10:23 AM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Someone anonymously wrote:

"Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary."

This person seems to assume that making sure that every passenger who holds a boarding pass is "authorized to travel" is necessary for ensuring transportation safety. I don't care what, if any, authorization someone sitting next to me on a flight has, as long as he's not carrying anything that presents a danger to me and other passengers.

But let's consider what is meant by "authorized to travel":

From the perspective of an airline, someone holding a valid boarding pass is authorized to travel -- that's what a boarding pass indicates. And since boarding passes contain no biometric identification, it's safe to assume that they are transferable. So regardless of who purchased a ticket and exchanged it for a boarding pass, the holder of that boarding pass has an airline-provided document that indicates that he may board.

From the perspective of the United States government (at least to the degree that it is operating in a manner consistent with our Constitution), everyone is authorized to travel. People in the United States are guaranteed the right to travel.

Travel is necessary in order to exercise our right to assemble and our right to associate. We couldn't do either if our movement was restricted. A restriction on travel would also affect our right to free speech -- if you couldn't travel, you could say whatever you wanted, but you'd mostly be talking to yourself.

Of course, sometimes there is good reason to stop a person from going about his business. When this is warranted -- such as would be the case if someone was reasonably suspected of having committed a crime -- we rely on our police to place that person under arrest and bring him before a judge who will determine what should happen to him. In order to restrict a person's movement for an extended period of time, we can put him in prison or place him on probation.

Most, if not all, people on the United States government's blacklists (the "terrorist watch list", "no-fly list", etc.) are not terrorists, or criminals of any sort. If they were, we'd go arrest them and put them on trial. At best, they are suspects. At worst, they are people who someone with the power to add names to the blacklist decided should not be allowed to travel freely.

It seems to me that the degree to which an airport ID check has any effect will be proportional to the degree to which it is used to restrict people's freedom to travel without interference or monitoring by our government. Thus, it is either ineffective or unconstitutional.

"If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?"

Letting everyone through airport security checkpoints would slow down the system. It seems reasonable that if we had sufficient resources to do so, we could let anyone who has been screened for dangerous items through airport security, regardless of whether an airline has authorized him to board a flight.

April 29, 2008 11:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?

April 29, 2008 11:49 AM

 
Anonymous Dave X the first said...

Re Winston: Hear Hear!

Even if some terrorists do happen to get a bomb onto a plane, it is simply not credible that they could leverage it into a 9/11-style hijacking. If the terrorists were to use the bomb, they wouldn't be able to fly the plane. If the passengers and aircrew were susceptible to a mere bomb threat, then the terrorists could use a completely undetectable fake bomb. If terrorists really want to kill people with explosives and depress air travel, they'd probably do better with a claymore at a checkpoint. It makes sense that TSA would hype fantasy threats to justify its existence, and that's what lots of TSAs scenarios look like if 'you do your homework'.

Flying is safer than driving, and when the inconveniences and fears cause people to drive rather than fly, more people die:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March05/Sept11driving.pdf. Also TSA screening costs lives.

TSA is probably responsible for killing more people by causing them to drive than they could hope to save through screening.

April 29, 2008 11:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want safety health information and/or an example of the images from MMW scanner and backscatter scans:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_wbi.pdf

April 29, 2008 12:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think everything TSA is doing is a positive step in the right directions. These new machines are quick and easy and will help keep everyone safe. Have you people forgotten 911!! Thousands of americans died and you complain about taking your shoes off and not taking your gaint bottle of hair gel through TSA checkpoints. I think we have it very easy compared to other countries, in Russia you walk through the metal detector and even if you clear it you get padded down and every officer has an M5 machine gun with them. Would you rather have that? TSA is working very hard to keep us safe and they have to deal with people complaining as well. Here is a true fact there hasn't been anything bad stuff happening since TSA started. RIGHT?
Good Job TSA

April 29, 2008 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary. If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?



An excellent point... the simple answer is we should let them through. If they're screened to enter then what's the big deal?

Think these things through, and you'll find that an argument like this one just falls flat on its face when considering the interest of security.

That being said, everyone who goes through gets MWW'd.. no pat downs.

A) it's far less intrusive
B) one does not lose the freedom of movement and lose the balance of power that come from a true strip search.

Big deal, someone sees under your clothes... boohoo... get over it.. I'd much rather be analyzed than poked and prodded any day, and as an added bonus it's the ONLY proposed change to anything that makes ANY improvements in security.

April 29, 2008 1:49 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Dear Blog Team,

In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to federal REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses. What plans does the TSA have to give additional screening to 100% of the travelers from those states? Have additional personnel requirements and additional space requirements already been analyzed? Given that one of those states is California, with several major national and international hubs, do you think that the insistance on REAL ID instead of a regular drivers license is overly onerous a burden?

To those commenters who are going to say "of course you need ID to fly" or something similar, please google "REAL ID" and find out what my question is about.

April 29, 2008 3:22 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous detractor who comments:

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?


You are clearly misreading my statement if you think that I do not believe that we ought to be proactive in our approach to combating real threats to our transportation infrastructure. As long as individuals think that they can effect real change through spectacular displays of violence against innocents it is the duty of decent people to do what is possible to prevent that from happening.

What I would point out to you is that the most nefarious terrorist plots are never discovered at the airport. The terrorists responsible for the death of the Japanese man in the Bojinka incident were testing out the mechanics of a larger plot, both to see if their devices would work and probing the vulnerabilities of airport security as it was in 1994 in the Philippines. Airport security detected nothing. It was on the ground investigation that uncovered the actual details of the larger plot. Similarly with London, those hapless fools were caught before they even got started by alert people alerting the proper authorities and are on trial for conspiracy. Airport security had nothing to do with that either.

On 9/11, the hijackers went through airport security. They had valid government issued ID. According to testimony given by Condoleeza Rice to the 9/11 Commission there was an intelligence report issued that suggested approximately a month before 9/11 that there was a suspected terror plot brewing in which airliners would be used as flying bombs but the report was disregarded.

The TSA, for all its hype, has yet to catch anyone trying to commit a bona fide act of terrorism. Defenders of the TSA will try to tell us that the enhancements in airport security have a deterrent effect on would-be terrorists. I find these claims to be without merit given the TSA's track record of missing things at the checkpoints. On the masthead of this blog TSA proudly proclaims "Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part" to which they really ought to add "Because We're Always at least 5 Steps Behind."

So no my Anonymous detractor, I don't want to see terror plots succeed before we do anything about them. On the other hand, I don't want to see my tax dollars spent on ineffective security theater that does little if anything to increase my safety, but definitely infringes upon my civil liberties, your civil liberties, and those of every person to go through a checkpoint, whether or not you are selected for additional screening.

Finally, to answer your last presumptuous and somewhat rude question, no, I don't hold up the line by yelling at TSOs. I fly twice a week in my job and almost never get selected for additional screening. I follow the 3-1-1 rule. I follow the shoe rule. I even take my belt off to go through the scanner. I am polite to the TSOs, so long as they are polite to me, and rarely say anything to them. I don't carry anything I ought not carry and I never have a problem. In fact I even sometimes help little old ladies get their bags up on the inspection tables because they remind me of my grandmother when I have time.

I am a prolific writer here not because I have problems myself getting through the TSA screening process, but because I am a civil libertarian. I view the TSA as a highly ineffective and very visible symbol of a government that has in a knee jerk fear reaction to a terrible and desperate act gone out of control beyond my wildest nightmares with the full support of a public that has been anesthetized by American Idol and dumbed down by Fox News.

April 29, 2008 5:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous who posted: "Big deal, someone sees under your clothes... boohoo... get over it.. I'd much rather be analyzed than poked and prodded any day, and as an added bonus it's the ONLY proposed change to anything that makes ANY improvements in security.

You are obviously not a young woman with a body that attracts men's interest. I am, and I do not want an unknown, unmonitored (Bob has already informed us they will not be filmed) person looking under my closed in a faraway undisclosed location.

April 29, 2008 5:58 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Phil:

From the perspective of the United States government (at least to the degree that it is operating in a manner consistent with our Constitution), everyone is authorized to travel. People in the United States are guaranteed the right to travel.

Here's a question which nags at me.

I agree that the constitution guarantees the right to travel. But no constitutional guarantee is unconditional and absolute.

I have a right to travel. But that doesn't mean that I can walk up to a ticket counter and demand a free ticket on a flight of my choosing. Denying me that ticket is not a denial of my right to travel; it's a recognition of the rights of the air carrier to choose how, when, and with whom it chooses to transact business.

Similarly, I may have a right to travel ... but if I refuse to comply with the rules that govern air travel, I can be refused the opportunity to travel by air. I can still drive, or take the bus, or walk. My right to travel has not been denied. Granted, I've been severely inconvenienced, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not sure that a constitutional "right to travel" equates with a
"right to fly". But I'm open to arguments.

April 29, 2008 8:26 PM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

Have you people forgotten 911!!

No, I haven't, but apparently you have because:

1) The 9/11 hijackers didn't blow up a plane with liquids in bottles holding more than 3 oz.

2) The 9/11 hijackers didn't blow up a plane with a "shoe bomb."

3) The 9/11 hijackers all had valid, state-issued ID's.

4) The 9/11 hijackers on the planes that crashed on 9/11 were able to take control of the cockpits because those doors were not secure. The 3-1-1 Rule, shoe bombs and IDs - real or fraudulent - would have had no bearing on that.

If you wish to surrender your civil and Constitutional rights in order to feel like you are somehow safer, then by all means, please do so.

The rest of us, however, will continue to question the TSA as we see fit.

April 29, 2008 8:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To those commenters who are going to say "of course you need ID to fly" or something similar, please google "REAL ID" and find out what my question is about."
the states weigh in:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-993...?tag=nefd.lede

April 29, 2008 11:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's in your bottle?

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=08fe8a99-aadd-4eec-8107-cea969b4a67b

April 30, 2008 1:16 AM

 
Anonymous Greg from homebizseo said...

I do not mind the hassle If we can stop another 9/11 from taking place. Scores of people were killed and everyone seem to forget why we have guidelines in place at airports I am in the "Make Money Online" business and I just want to be safe when traveling. Security should be at high levels and not compromised.


Regards, Greg

April 30, 2008 1:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If someone misses their plane because of TSA slowness on the special "bad guys line" (on an ordinary day, not under any special alert, and yes, it happens) who pays for the replacement flight?

The airlines can say "It's not our fault," the TSA can say "Just doing our job," and you're stuck buying a $2000 same-day replacement ticket (which, by the way, puts you back on the bad-guys line if you need to do another security check).

April 30, 2008 6:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear blog team,

This is just one more reminder that we are still waiting for the front and rear images of men and women as seen during the screening process using backscatter and millimeter wave scans.

If you are not going to show us these images (as seems to be the case considering how many of these requests have gone unanswered), please let us know why you will not post them.

April 30, 2008 7:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have safety concerns about the TSA work force.

Is it true that there is a high rate of TSOs with cancer working at TSA.

If so what is TSA doing to address this issue?

April 30, 2008 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous detractor who said:

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?


I put together a fairly extensive answer to your question yesterday that for some reason has not been posted here (it's happened before, once in a while the TSA moderators really don't like what I have to say and don't post my comments (even though they don't violate the comments policy -- censorship much?) I'll not repeat everything I said yesterday (mostly for lack of time).

Suffice it to say that I'm all for intelligent application of investigation and police work (to defeat terror plots. I am not convinced that the TSA checkpoints qualify in this regard, being little better than an only sometimes effective "hail mary" play to try to keep some bad things off of planes.

What I asked for in my original post was an independent verification from trustworthy sources that there is merit to the 3-1-1 rule. I also asked for independent verification from trustworthy sources that there is merit to this whole x-ray the shoes rule. To me independent verification would come from a non-government (US or any other) affiliated testing agency not working under government (US or any other) contract with full access to all information that the government has about what they have found (even if the lab were required to keep the actual government information secret). If the results from these independent lab tests come back stating that there is merit to 3-1-1 and/or shoe x-raying then you have an instant convert in me. Unless or until that happens though, you have the TSA, an agency whose credibility is dubious at best, and which operates behind a cloak of secrecy (SSI anyone?) assuming that we will take it at its word when it says "trust us." It does not work that way for me.

The people who bring up Bojinka and London forget (conveniently?) that those plots were defeated not by airport security (not in 1994, not in 2006) but by the investigatory agencies of the countries in which the plots were hatched. Solid intelligence work is what defeats terrorists, not airport security theater. What I have asked for is for the TSA effectively to come across with the extraordinary proof for its extraordinary claims that the abrogations of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in the name of "security" are actually making us any safer. I haven't seen it.

Finally, to your somewhat presumptuous thinking that I am one of those people who cause problems in airport checkpoint lines by yelling at TSOs, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I fly twice a week for work. I don't even get stopped. I follow the rules -- even the ones I don't agree with (3-1-1, shoes), I take my belt off and put it in the bin, and I even help out people in line who are near me if they are clearly mobility impaired to lift their bags onto the tables. I'm not rude to the TSOs (unless they're rude to me -- generally our communication is silent and limited to a wave and a point to the retrieve your bags area) and fly right through. I can't remember the last time I got stopped for secondary screening -- I think it happened once a few years ago. I follow the rules because they are the rules, not because I agree with them. I am working within the system to do what I can to change them. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Speaking out here is just part of the process.

If you don't like or agree with what I have to say, I invite you to debate me on any point. I'll be happy to back up anything I say with research (that does not come from wikipedia) but I'll expect nothing less from you. I am resolute in my positions but I'm not so inflexible that I cannot be swayed by evidence from credible sources.

Or you can simply ignore me and move on. That is freedom.

April 30, 2008 10:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person who commented on the "tin badges" being given out to TSA Officers...

Just for the record, the badges are not some cheaply-made products...they're made by a little company called Blackinton. Maybe you've heard of them? They only specialize in making the majority of law enforcement, EMS, Fire and other civil service badges. The badges are made of the same metal material as any other federal badge, and their design is a cross between one or two badges in use by other federal agencies.

My point is that TSA is doing a decent job in working to boost the morale of their officers. The point of the badges, along with the new uniforms, is to improve the overall look of TSA Officers.The badge is not worn by the TSO until they are dressed in the new uniform, and TSA is not "handing them out". TSA has put a good deal of funding into, and training material in conjunction with the new uniforms, and they look sharp. The blue shirts, black vests, dark blue striped pants and Blackinton federal badges with Hi-Glo finish are a great combination.

If everyone wants the TSA to be more passenger-friendly and professional, this IS the first step. A professional look will make the TSOs both look and act more professional. At the same time, it will improve the image of TSOs in the eyes of the public. I know some of you will laugh at that, but its true: a more professional image will look good in the eyes of the average passenger. Regardless of what anyone will say on here, I can tell you first-hand that the uniform change has had positive results. If military servicemen are impressed, then I'm pretty confident that its a step in the right direction in regards to looks.

April 30, 2008 11:48 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Hmmm.. I said earlier...

I put together a fairly extensive answer to your question yesterday that for some reason has not been posted here (it's happened before, once in a while the TSA moderators really don't like what I have to say and don't post my comments (even though they don't violate the comments policy -- censorship much?)

Well blog team... egg on my face.. you did post my original comment.. just a little slower on the approve button than usual.

April 30, 2008 11:49 AM

 
Blogger Shane said...

The problem that I see is that people are looking at flying the wrong way. Flying is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. It's the same as driving. It isn't a right to be able to drive. Your privilege to drive can be revoked at any time. And there are certain rules that you must follow when driving. It is the same with air travel. Even though you aren’t actually flying the plane, it is still a privilege to be on the plane. Honestly, if you feel that the TSA, the government or anyone else is infringing on your civil liberties, there are other methods of travel that do not have “watch lists” or “strip searches” that you can utilize.

April 30, 2008 12:04 PM

 
Blogger Neil said...

winstonsmith said:
Well blog team... egg on my face.. you did post my original comment.. just a little slower on the approve button than usual.

Wisely, and slow. They stumble that run fast.
William Shakespeare

-Neil
TSA Blog Team

April 30, 2008 12:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston: the bloggers put the egg on your face.

Neil: They stumble that are tripped.

The bloggers approve comments out of order of their posting, but displays them in posting order. This means the more weighty comments are hidden for a period of time while waiting for approval, while the lighter ones show up on the threads to frustrate the thoughtful posters. If the tag lines said "Submitted April 28, 2008 10:52 AM, Approved April 29, 2008 6:52 PM" TSA's (blogging) procedure might seem more clear.

April 30, 2008 1:02 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Neil, really:

Wisely, and slow. They stumble that run fast.
William Shakespeare

-Neil


Do you think that you can win me over with classic literature? I mean it's a start, but ....

April 30, 2008 1:56 PM

 
Blogger Neil said...

Anonymous said:
The bloggers approve comments out of order of their posting, but displays them in posting order. This means the more weighty comments are hidden for a period of time while waiting for approval, while the lighter ones show up on the threads to frustrate the thoughtful posters. If the tag lines said "Submitted April 28, 2008 10:52 AM, Approved April 29, 2008 6:52 PM" TSA's (blogging) procedure might seem more clear.


We have multiple employees act as moderators on the blog. Some tend to be more cautious than others and ask for a second or third opinion before they approve or reject a comment. Rather than hold up other comments that clearly don't violate the TOU, they just approve those. So that is why you sometimes see comments posted as you state above.

I wish the blogging tool that we use allowed us to post the two dates that you mention above, but it does not support that.

-Neil
TSA Blog Team

April 30, 2008 3:44 PM

 
Blogger Neil said...

Winstonsmith said:
Do you think that you can win me over with classic literature? I mean it's a start, but ....


Hehehe. Hey, I figured a writer like yourself would appreciate the reference. I took Blogger Bob out to the Nats game last night for a little DC culture. So with some beer, baseball and brats... blog moderation got held up for a little bit. ;)

-Neil
TSA Blog Team

April 30, 2008 3:57 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Jim, you bring up an interesting question:

Similarly, I may have a right to travel ... but if I refuse to comply with the rules that govern air travel, I can be refused the opportunity to travel by air. I can still drive, or take the bus, or walk. My right to travel has not been denied. Granted, I've been severely inconvenienced, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not sure that a constitutional "right to travel" equates with a
"right to fly". But I'm open to arguments.


The "right to travel" is rooted in the 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly -- effectively your right to associate freely with anyone you wish, and the 5th amendment guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Further strengthening these rights are the 9th and 10th amendments that state that powers not specifically given to the federal government in the constitution fall to the states and powers that are not specifically delegated to the states are reserved for the people. Surprisingly enough, however, the "right to travel" is not specifically laid out in the constitution (but it has been upheld by court precedent U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966); Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999).

When it comes to flying, you are free to enter into a contract (associate) with an air carrier. The air carrier may refuse to do business with you for whatever reason, but that is not the government telling you that you cannot fly, but the air carrier refusing to do business with you. Assuming you follow the rules and regulations (meaning that you don't do anything on the spot that would cause you to be subject to arrest or to have your movements otherwise restricted), the government technically has no say in whether or not you can fly -- at least according to the Constitution, unless the government has gone through the necessary legal steps to stop you from flying, an action for which a court order would be necessary.

That's why I have a problem with no-fly lists. If the government has a reason that I or some other person ought not be boarding a plane, let the government go in front of a judge and get a court order that will allow me or that other person to be prevented from boarding. This business of the super secret list is the stuff that police states are built on and we as Americans are supposed to be better than that.

So I thought I'd just throw that out there. You have a right to travel by any means that is convenient to you unless the government has gone through the steps of due process to deny you the ability to do so. No due process, no constitutionally permissible restriction.

Now mind you all this is great in theory. I have absolutely no doubt that the current administration in its overbearing zeal to find a suspected terrorist under every rock (sounds a bit like Joe McCarthy in the 1950s doesn't it?) has completely overstepped its bounds and completely ignored its obligation to go through due process. The last statistic that I read was that some 900,000 people were currently watch-listed. However, I do recall that the individual who currently occupies the office of the President once referred to the Constitution as nothing more than a "GD piece of paper," so little that his administration does would surprise me.

April 30, 2008 9:48 PM

 
Anonymous Valkyrie Lliorlance said...

Here in the Philippines, our goverment want to have what they called national ID system, it just like what they have in USA. Its a good way to lessen the threat of terrorism. Terrorist is spread widely nowaday, even here, we have local terrorist groups that our government is still fighting terrorism to the best that they could.

May 1, 2008 3:42 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Winston:

When it comes to flying, you are free to enter into a contract (associate) with an air carrier. The air carrier may refuse to do business with you for whatever reason, but that is not the government telling you that you cannot fly, but the air carrier refusing to do business with you.

Ok ... but what if the air carrier, as a condition of its contract with you, insists on governmental approval of your request to fly? Surely the air carrier can voluntarily choose to impose that restriction on itself?

May 1, 2008 8:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I have safety concerns about the TSA work force.
Is it true that there is a high rate of TSOs with cancer working at TSA.
If so what is TSA doing to address this issue?"
April 30, 2008 10:40 AM


So what is the TSA going to do to help these people that suddenly get Cancer after 5, 10, or 20 years of working near all the TSA's "safe" equipment

May 1, 2008 9:38 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Jim, you ask the following as a follow on to my response to your comment about no-fly lists:

When it comes to flying, you are free to enter into a contract (associate) with an air carrier. The air carrier may refuse to do business with you for whatever reason, but that is not the government telling you that you cannot fly, but the air carrier refusing to do business with you.

Ok ... but what if the air carrier, as a condition of its contract with you, insists on governmental approval of your request to fly? Surely the air carrier can voluntarily choose to impose that restriction on itself?


The key to your question is the word voluntarily. If the government provides a watch list that it makes available to the airlines that the airlines can check or not check at will in order to make an 'informed' (ahem) decision whether to enter into a contract with a potential passenger then while there may still be an issue with a person's name appearing on that list without due process, it does not in itself rise to the level of a travel restriction.

On the other hand, if the government requires the air carrier to check the same list before entering into a contract with a person, then that, at least from my understanding of the Constitution, would be impermissible in that absent a proper court order it is a restriction on the freedom of association, and may infringe upon liberty if there is no other reasonable way for the traveler to get to where he or she is going.

The government could try to lean, as it has done in the past in other matters, on its enumerated power to "regulate commerce between the several states" as justification and suggest that this power to regulate trumps. I can't imagine that the courts have not dealt with this one (although perhaps not directly in the context of no-fly lists -- yet), although I would have to do some research to find out where the courts are leaning these days when it comes to questions of individual liberty versus state power (although in our current climate and with the current crop of judges I have a feeling I could guess and sadly not be too far off the mark). I can tell you though that the courts have traditionally upheld a fairly expansive definition of "commerce."

I hope that helps Jim. I wish the answer were more cut and dried. Unfortunately, when it comes to constitutional questions, things rarely are.

May 1, 2008 10:09 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

Garrison Keillor sees the TSA for what it is:

"Although when I went through airport security in Minneapolis on Monday, it was an object lesson in something — a line of a hundred people twisted around in the cattle chute, 16 men and women in the white TSA shirts with the epaulets, an obese young woman shouting at us to take our laptop computers out of our cases in a voice she learned from a prison camp movie; one metal detector in operation, two closed, and the guardian of this narrow gate was a man who carefully read each boarding pass as if proofreading it for misspellings, though it had already been checked by his colleague at the head of the line. And then a poor old guy rolled up in a wheelchair who had to be made to walk through the metal detector, though he could not walk. But he could sort of shuffle, an inch at a time, so we got to watch him do that.

The line inched along, four supervisors stood watching blankly, the fat lady barked, the gentleman operating the scanner was very jittery about shaving kits and computer batteries and needed to have every other bag checked, and in the lifetime it took to go through, you started to sympathize with all the Republicans who've complained about government inefficiency, except it is a Republican administration that runs this operation, but never mind. Details, details.

And also it seemed to me that I was the only one in line who was grinding my teeth. Everyone else was quite chipper, as if they were heading off on the class trip to Excelsior Amusement Park. So if I had spoken up and the shirts had thrown me to the ground and Maced me and stuffed me into a holding cell to await arraignment under the Patriot Act, I doubted that anyone would've come to my defense. They would've figured I must have had a shoe bomb on me or something.

These were my fellow Minnesotans in line and we are docile in April, at the end of our long winter. On Sunday the 20th of April, temperatures were in the 70s and the crocuses were about to bloom, and then on Friday the 25th, a half-inch of snow fell. People didn't talk about it. There it was, plain as the nose on your face, but it was just too awful to discuss. It was like your old husband getting blitzed at your parents' 50th anniversary and trying to get everyone to sing All You Need Is Love. It's like your child announcing that she's written a memoir called Spirals of Shame. Don't talk about it. Move on...."

May 1, 2008 10:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Garrison Keillor's reference to the abuse of the elderly is the most saddening. Why do they do that? Why hold the elderly or the infirm up for ridicule? Why belittle them? It breaks my heart to see this behavior of Americans treating Americans this way. Is there no shame? What do the little children think?

Wasn't this the behavior of the prison camps?

May 1, 2008 12:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Air marshalls grounded because of no-fly list. Way to go, TSA! Now you're making us less safe at screening AND in the air!

May 1, 2008 1:14 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Winstonsmith writes:

I wish the answer were more cut and dried. Unfortunately, when it comes to constitutional questions, things rarely are.

Which is exactly the point I was working around towards.

There are some respondents (not necessarily you, of course), who are naively suggesting that any TSA restriction on flight is a violation of one's constitutional rights. There are others who are suggesting that any and every restriction made in the name of security is lawful. Neither extreme is correct, of course. But we all need to approach the topic with a bit more humility ... myself included.

May 1, 2008 4:29 PM

 
Anonymous Sam at Buy Binoculars said...

I agree entirely with the first commenter. The current no fly list would take forever to parse, and starting from scratch seems like it would be a much more pragmatic approach. This is definitely an issue that needs attention as there are many travelers having their lives severely disrupted as a direct result.

May 1, 2008 5:17 PM

 
Anonymous Dave X the first said...

At least 9000 false positives per day for the no-fly list?

In low occurrence rate detection systems, like TSA trying to detect terrorists, the high false positive rates will become standard operating procedure and swamp almost any actual danger. If you alert on 9000 people per day because of the no-fly list, even if a terrorist is on it, you'll probably treat the terrorist the same as you would the other 9000 people.

No-fly-list, xrays, liquids, knives: it is all the same story. If you crank up your detection such that you'd notice an actual threat, you will get so many false alarms that the real threats would blend right in. If you crank your detection down such that you get an acceptable number of false alarms, someone with something dangerous could breeze through.

TSA's task is essentially impossible.

May 1, 2008 5:50 PM

 
Anonymous banka said...

nice work.keep goin' on.have a nice day

May 1, 2008 6:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear blog team,

You complain we do not give constructive criticism you can work with. Here are a few direct, easy to answer, points:

1. PLEASE post images of men and women from the front, as seen by the full body scanners in use in selected airports.

2. Please clarify if liquid bottles must be original or if they can be unlabeled, as long as within limits.

3. Please open a hot topic area for full body scans, which seem to be a strong concern for many of us.

4. Please post prominently on TSA guidelines to travelers everywhere that wearing baggy clothes will lead you to secondary screening.

5. Consider ending with shoe removal and liquid baggie control for all, substituting these actions with metal detector and puffer screens.

6. Please answer why TSA full body scans are done with the passenger in front of everyone else in the airport, while the evaluator is hidden away. Why not like in Heathrow where the passenger is in private with the same-sex screener, and sees both the scan and the screener´s reaction to it?

May 2, 2008 10:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My question to all these people saying that the shoe screening is ridiculous, don't they remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber?

I mean the only reason we didn't have 9/11 II: Terrortastic Bungaloo is because he was an idiot, not because it was an impossible plan.

Shoes are a threat, please stop pretending it's not.

Seriously, stop it.

May 2, 2008 11:13 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

5. Consider ending with shoe removal and liquid baggie control for all, substituting these actions with metal detector and puffer screens.

Actually, with regards to shoes, I'm completely fine with a consistent rule. Before the "shoes off" rule, I went out and specifically bought a pair of "airport-safe" shoes. Those shoes would set off metal detectors about half the time, depending on which airport I was in. I'd have some TSAs telling me "don't take your shoes off", and then the scanner would go off, and I'd have to go through secondary screening ... even if I suspected the shoes were bad.

At least this way, I know what to expect. Consistency is a good thing.

May 2, 2008 1:14 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"My question to all these people saying that the shoe screening is ridiculous, don't they remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber?

I mean the only reason we didn't have 9/11 II: Terrortastic Bungaloo is because he was an idiot, not because it was an impossible plan.

Shoes are a threat, please stop pretending it's not.

Seriously, stop it."

If the explosive had been in Richard Reid's underwear instead of his shoe, the TSA security search routine would be entirely different these days, wouldn't it? One idiot can produce a windfall of idiocy.

May 2, 2008 2:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shoes are a threat..."

No, they are not. I'd love to see someone on a plane threaten us with a shoe.

The things that people conceal are a threat. It has been pointed out on here many times that what could be concealed in a shoe could now just be strapped to a body.

re: liquids. In one of the earlier posts on this blog TSA acknowledged that even under laboratory conditions it took several tries to mix things right. In a lab.

The current rules are excessive to the point of unreasonable.

May 2, 2008 3:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure I remember Richard Reid. He was the nut who tried to light his shoe on fire using (still permitted) matches. Because of him all of us have to suffer taking our shoes off. The TSA says it is to keep us safe.

I also know I can die of breast cancer, yet I don't think of removing my breasts, nor do I test them every day. I can die being hit by lightening, but I still leave my home during a rain storm.

You have to weigh risk with how much of a hassle and cost it is to avoid that particular risk.

In the case of shoes in airports, unless the TSA shows me solid numbers, the costs (finantial and in terms of passenger harassment) surely outweigh the risk.

I am suggesting to use puffers and metal detectors as primary screening methods. They can detect explosive traces (wherever they are, liquid or not). Passengers who sett these devices off can be screened more deeply, including taking their shoes off.

May 2, 2008 5:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just went through the new BWI security. While it looks impressive it took quite a bit longer than the old system. The automated tray handling looked to be the culprit. Slow going in and you felt like working on assembly line coming out. I saw several eldery and most likely in-frequent travelers appearing to struggle with the constantly moving trays as the exit.

May 2, 2008 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To the Anonymous defender of the barefoot parade Status Quo who states ever so emphatically:

My question to all these people saying that the shoe screening is ridiculous, don't they remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber?

I mean the only reason we didn't have 9/11 II: Terrortastic Bungaloo is because he was an idiot, not because it was an impossible plan.

Shoes are a threat, please stop pretending it's not.

Seriously, stop it.


In over 75 years of commercial aviation there has been 1 documented case of someone attempting to use a shoe bomb to bring down an airplane. That case is Richard Reid. Unless Google's search capabilities have completely failed, there does not appear to have been a single documented incident of a person attempting to bring down an airliner with a shoe bomb or any news report of a shoe bomb being discovered by airport security anywhere in the world either before or since.

Most every country in the world has flights going in and out of it every day. Airline security in only a handful of them, however, requires shoes to be x-rayed. Terrorists are not stupid people. Is it not unreasonable to think that were a terrorist of a mind to commit a shoe bombing of an airliner that (s)he would start the fateful journey at an airport that does not x-ray shoes and make sure to route through airports where no additional screening would be required. It does not take a genius these days to get that kind of information, just an internet connection. So far, this hasn't happened. Could it happen? -- sure it could. The moon could also fall into the Pacific Ocean, but I'm not going to lay awake nights worrying about that highly unlikely possibility either.

Now it is true that people do hide things in their shoes. They hide drugs. They hide money. They hide small weapons. None of these things really represent a threat to an airliner in flight, especially in a post-9/11 world with alert passengers and hardened cockpit doors. If someone were to remove something from a shoe in flight and become a threat, there is no doubt that that person would be subdued very quickly by both passengers and cabin crew. If someone were seen to be trying to light his shoe as in the case of Reid, again, as in fact happened in the case of Reid, he was subdued and brought to trial.

Terrorists thrive on publicity. It is not likely therefore that a bomber would quietly slip into a lav to detonate a bomb that would bring the plane down -- it would be too easy to mistake such an incident for sudden catastrophic mechanical failure of some kind -- especially if the plane were in a place where it would not be easily recovered, such as over the ocean -- while any number of groups could claim responsibility for it after the fact while the government spins like a dervish to deny any terrorist involvement (unless it serves its political purposes to do otherwise -- for example to assist in the saber rattling process to trump up reasons attack another country pre-emptively). People have to see what's going on and to be afraid and to report on it for the terrorist act to have any real effect.

The TSA is not meant to be a dragnet for people carrying large sums of cash, or drugs, or porn or other such not so nice things, but it is always quick to pat itself on the back for a job well done when it finds them anyway. X-raying shoes aids the agency in this aspect of mission creep very nicely. There is the 1 in a billion chance that they might find something actually dangerous in a shoe, but I'll believe it when I see it. Meanwhile to me it is nothing more than security theater, going far beyond the bounds of reasonable administrative search, but still a rule with which I comply.

As I have said before, I'm all for intelligent application of intelligent security. To me this does not qualify. Until you can pull out a better example than Reid of an ongoing threat from shoe bombs I'm going to politely respond to your plea to "stop it" with an equally polite "no."

May 2, 2008 5:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new checkpoint evolution at the airport I fly out of (HOU) is a bit confusing. You have your black Diamond lane , your employee lane, your family lane and your casual traveler lane. Great. Problem is that once each of the different passengers has had their ID and ticket info check your are released into an open area where you can proceed to any divestment line you wish. All lanes are open to all passengers. I fail to see how this is helping anyone move faster.

The only thing I see happening is the poor use of personnel. They have stationed three to five additional TSOs outside the check point to direct traffic to specialized lanes that lead to the same congestion that existed before the new CHECKPOINT EVOLUTION, a large cattle rush. By taking those "customer service" TSOs off the check point you have decreased the number of TSOs who could be helping with the screening that needs to be done after the passengers have passed through WTMD. I see the whole thing as a PR smoke and mirrors game. You again think you are getting some but you really aren't.

May 2, 2008 8:32 PM

 
Anonymous W2me said...

I travel every week for work. I am no supermodel, I am a fat 47 year old white woman.

If I didnt not have to go thru the hassle of screening, if you told me I could cut out 30 to 45 mins of my time in the airport by removing my clothes and walking naked thru security I would have my clothes off in a second.

Seriously, we need to get over those fears of the scanner... no one cares what you look like naked. it has to be men who are worried their stuff is going to look small on film.

I would be a billion times happier if there would be seperate lines for people with children, people who dont fly often enough to be able to handle the instructions and stupid people who do not think the rules are meant for them.

Even better if those people had a seperate line at the SouthWest ticket kiosk as well. If there is a kiosk free and you are the next person in line, go use it, for heavens sakes... are you waiting for an engraved invitation?

May 3, 2008 3:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE Garrison Keillor's tale about the elderly man at the checkpoint --

If anyone at the TSA ever wants to know why it's personnel have a reputation as bullies, they should be required to read that story.

May 4, 2008 8:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a suggestion for the blog operators that they make a change. When i log in looking for new posts on each of the topics it takes a lot of work to find them. If there was a place where new posts were consolidated by either a link, or update of something similar this would be so helpful.

May 4, 2008 11:18 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

winstonsmith said...

As I have said before, I'm all for intelligent application of intelligent security. To me this does not qualify. Until you can pull out a better example than Reid of an ongoing threat from shoe bombs I'm going to politely respond to your plea to "stop it" with an equally polite "no."


While I agree the security lines should not be a dragnet, I have to disagree with you about the shoes.

I am of the mindset that if it worked or almost worked once, it can and will be tried again unless you plug that security hole.

If Reid was not such a spastic fellow his plot could have very well brought down that plane. If the x-rays were not put in place, the next guy might have steadier nerves.

I am afraid we will have to take off our shoes until the TSA stops pissing money away on fancy light shows and spiffy "cop" uniforms and spends the money on chemical sniffers.

May 5, 2008 1:53 AM

 
Anonymous Dave Nelson said...

If Reid was not such a spastic fellow his plot could have very well brought down that plane. If the x-rays were not put in place, the next guy might have steadier nerves.

You know? If Reid WAS successful, the TSA would have been forced to put most of its resources and priorities towards explosives detection, both personal and cargo, and there never would have been a Shoe Carnival or the "War on Shampoo."

We would still have the TSA, but they would have been forced to concentrate on real threats.

Food for thought...

May 5, 2008 11:38 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Trollkiller, in response to:

While I agree the security lines should not be a dragnet, I have to disagree with you about the shoes.

I am of the mindset that if it worked or almost worked once, it can and will be tried again unless you plug that security hole.

If Reid was not such a spastic fellow his plot could have very well brought down that plane. If the x-rays were not put in place, the next guy might have steadier nerves.

I am afraid we will have to take off our shoes until the TSA stops pissing money away on fancy light shows and spiffy "cop" uniforms and spends the money on chemical sniffers.


I understand and respect your position. I don't happen to share it only because I feel that the threat is minimal and the action itself fairly empty in a post 9/11 environment for the reasons I stated in my much longer post above. I will say though that of all of the ridiculous things that the TSA puts the traveler through, because someone actually tried to do do harm -- on a plane -- with a shoe bomb at some point -- even once -- this is the one with which I have the fewest problems. So we can at least arrive at that much agreement.

And as for the rest of your post, I'm right there with you: the TSA needs to focus its budget and energy on actual security and not on appearances. Fancy cop uniforms and light shows are useless if we're flying on top of uninspected cargo, which we will be until at least 2010, and quite probably beyond. I could go on (and folks who read my posts know I frequently do) but I have a lot of other things on my plate today as well.

Thanks for keeping real debate alive TK.

May 5, 2008 1:30 PM

 
Anonymous Miller said...

And as for the rest of your post, I'm right there with you: the TSA needs to focus its budget and energy on actual security and not on appearances. Fancy cop uniforms and light shows are useless if we're flying on top of uninspected cargo, which we will be until at least 2010, and quite probably beyond. I could go on (and folks who read my posts know I frequently do) but I have a lot of other things on my plate today as well.

The sheeple want to see motion. They want to see some sort of activity on the part of TSA. Uninspected cargo is much like an iceburg where 70% of it is out of sight and what's out of sight must be safe. If TSA were to stop the security theater tomorrow to concentrate on real threats and we had another terrorist attack (successful this time) they would demand TSA do something proving that TSA once again made the skies safe.

We should cut back on the security theater while taking care of the 70% that's hidden in containers. How likely is that to happen? Sadly the sheeple demand theater over reality.

We've all seen the 'security at any cost' posters who honestly believe that gate screeners actually protect us against terrorism. A determined terrorist could still wage an airborn attack. They could still wage an attack outside of the check point (remember the good doctors in the UK who only managed to set themselves on fire). Other than putting concrete barriers up so as to deny this form of attack, we did little to stop one from ocurring here. Most of the barriers have been removed because the sheeple complained about having to make a longer walk to check-in. Too bad they won't complain about the shoe removal and 3-1-1 liquids ban.

I talked with a gate agent (airlines & airport remain anonymous) and she said that even amongst airline employees TSA is held in contempt for irrational/illogical screening methods. She said that on 9/11 that the knives carried on board the aircraft by the terrorists were, at that time, perfectly legal. The terrorists had valid ID cards.

May 5, 2008 10:32 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Miller wrote:

"We should cut back on the security theater while taking care of the 70% that's hidden in containers."

Miller, do you understand what people mean when they refer to something as "security theater"? It's generally used to mean security countermeasures that make people feel secure but provide little or no improvement to security. It's not something we should cut back on, it's something we should eliminate.

May 6, 2008 1:28 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Phil writes:

Miller, do you understand what people mean when they refer to something as "security theater"? It's generally used to mean security countermeasures that make people feel secure but provide little or no improvement to security. It's not something we should cut back on, it's something we should eliminate.

Actually, security theater can be useful in certain limited situations, in an indirect way.

In very broad terms ... if people feel more secure, they will be less stressed. And lowering the stress involved in security screening is beneficial both for passengers and screeners alike, for reasons we've discussed frequently.

Now that's not a carte blanche endorsement of all security theater. As with all security measures, one needs to evaluate the cost-benefit relationship of any particular measure ... keeping in mind that the benefits might be in indirect ways like lowering stress.

May 6, 2008 10:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually, security theater can be useful in certain limited situations, in an indirect way."

But how useful is it in a _real_ way? What value, what real safety do we get from the money spent and the bother?

People felt safe on 9/10.

If people feel 'safe' now they are mistaken. They are duped by security kabuki.

As Helen Keller pointed out; "Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it."

,>)

T. Saint

May 7, 2008 8:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I stood in the "new" security line for over an hour this morning at BWI. First of all, it probably isn't the smartest thing to start any new procedure on a Monday morning. Also, in order to accurately measure the success of the new process, wouldn't it have made sense to open all of the lanes instead of having very long lines. Better planning is definitely a necessity when you are trying new processes. Hopefully the other airports will implement new processes in a much better way."


Funny, I was at the new checkpoint on that particular Monday and at no time did the line ever get to or exceed an hour. I will tell you that the new checkpoint was in operation for 3-4 days prior to the "Grand Opening Media Show" to make sure everything was up and running and to fine tune everything for the dog & pony show that took place on Monday. I will give you that the might have wanted to open all the lanes, but given that the new equipment is only in the first 4 lanes they wanted to showcase that and not the old stuff. That being said, another reason for having only the new lanes open might have been to actually have passengers in the queue and not have empty lanes with TSO's standing around doing what they do in lull times in between flights with all the media present. You know that some distractors would have been complaining about that.

And for winstonsmith......

Please do some additional research on the shoes and especially the liquid bomb plot, try some of the .edu websites like from some tech schools and some from Europe, expand your horizons seek out new information. You spout the same old song and dance and it's getting quite tiresome. The liquid plot is real, the shoe threat is real, the 9-11 plot was over 7 years old and they came back to it because they know Americans have short term memories. The original liquid plot was over 10 years old and they came back to it. Think, our enemy is a very stragegic actor and time is on their side.

We won't be fooled again - Who

May 7, 2008 1:42 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

But how useful is it in a _real_ way? What value, what real safety do we get from the money spent and the bother?

Now we're back to the whole theme of this particular item: Checkpoint Evolution.

One of TSA's (reasonable) arguments has been this: if the checkpoint process is calmer, then BDOs will have an easier time telling the difference between "normal" passengers (who might be stressed about flying in general) and "suspicious" passengers (who might be stressed because they're about to commit a crime).

If security theater helps to calm down most passengers, then security theater helps BDOs to be more effective in selecting truly suspicious individuals for additional screening.

Of course, how much security theater is needed to generate that effect is a matter for wiser heads than I to deliberate upon ...

May 7, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Jim Huggins wrote:

"Actually, security theater can be useful in certain limited situations, in an indirect way.

"In very broad terms ... if people feel more secure, they will be less stressed. And lowering the stress involved in security screening is beneficial both for passengers and screeners alike, for reasons we've discussed frequently."


That sounds reasonable, Jim, but I'll counter with the fact that a false sense of security leads to complacency. Surely we agree that such complacency is detrimental to safety.

If your home is being burglarized, you'll feel better if you don't know it's happening, and there's definitely a benefit to that reduction in your stress level for both you and the burglar. It comes at a cost, though. I don't like being jerked around.

May 7, 2008 2:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One of TSA's (reasonable) arguments has been this: if the checkpoint process is calmer..."

How does the 'theater' of the war on liquids and shoes make the process calmer?

HOW DOES THE SHOUTING

Ahem, How does shouting at the pax/slf help make the process 'calmer'?

,>)

T. Saint

May 7, 2008 5:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We won't be fooled again - Who"

Ironic choice of a song there.

"We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone

And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong

They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all

And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed

'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll move myself and my family aside

If we happen to be left half alive

I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky

For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"

May 7, 2008 6:15 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Phil writes:

That sounds reasonable, Jim, but I'll counter with the fact that a false sense of security leads to complacency. Surely we agree that such complacency is detrimental to safety.

It depends on who is feeling secure and/or complacent.

Making passengers feel secure (along with actually making them secure, of course) is fine. It's not a big deal if passengers become complacent, because it's not the responsibility of passengers to see to the security of air travel. (Personally, I'm not going to start inspecting my fellow passengers to see if they're carrying firearms.)

Making screeners feel secure to the point of creating complacency is, of course, not a good idea. But I think TSA is already concerned about complacency. (Frankly, we wouldn't be hearing about all the tests TSA screeners fail if TSA wasn't concerned about the complacency of its staff to be testing in the first place.)

May 7, 2008 8:48 PM

 
Blogger Thought Bubble said...

I think there's too much focus on airlines when it comes to terrorism.. because inevitably if you make the systems so good, inpenetrable (if possible), then any of the people trying to come into or out of US that have criminal intentions would just stop using the airlines.

How much of the whole 'airlines linked to terrorism' is taken out of proportion by airline companies that want free money from the US Govt?

The private companies and the investors and networks that are all involved seem to sometimes try to push the perception way out of proportion knowing that they can really try to manipulate the minds of some of the public that perhaps isn't looking outside the view the networks are painting for them?

Airline security is good, it would stop the lower level thugs that might attempt crap scare tactics or psychotic attacks against innocent peoples. But sometimes the people around the airlines try to make it seem as if the airlines are the single portal between US and the world. If terrorists are trying to come into US , they'd probably be using the borders since its said o na daily basis that US's current border security is obsolete. (but the airlines probably want first dibs on the money?) aren't there homeless soldiers in US right now? .. maybe a giant padlock on the airlines doors would end all the security problems? :)


frank
Full Color Printing

May 8, 2008 3:23 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

An Anonymous detractor has problems with things that I said, to wit:

And for winstonsmith......

Please do some additional research on the shoes and especially the liquid bomb plot, try some of the .edu websites like from some tech schools and some from Europe, expand your horizons seek out new information. You spout the same old song and dance and it's getting quite tiresome. The liquid plot is real, the shoe threat is real, the 9-11 plot was over 7 years old and they came back to it because they know Americans have short term memories. The original liquid plot was over 10 years old and they came back to it. Think, our enemy is a very stragegic actor and time is on their side.


Mr(s) Anonymous, please, educate me. Point me to some of these websites to which you refer. I have said many times that I am beyond willing to be convinced by credible evidence from credible sources that the positions I have taken are not correct. Even if I don't find the sources to be credible prima facie I'm still willing to take a look at what they have to say if for no other reason as springboards for my own independent research.

The fact that you personally find what I write to be tiresome is of little consequence to me. This fact certainly won't prevent me from continuing to point out what I see to be the fundamental flaws in the TSA; in its methods; in its personnel, hiring, and promotion practices; and in the arguments that brought it into being to begin with. No one has disputed that there are in fact groups out in the world who wish to do the US harm for a variety of reasons. At issue here is whether the measures the TSA has imposed at the cost of billions of our dollars and of encroachment on personal privacy rights that would make the Founding Fathers spin in their graves, has has made any of us any safer than we were on 9/10. If the TSA claims that it has, then it is for the TSA to prove that it has. The overwhelming body of evidence, however, suggests otherwise, from GAO reports, to investigative journalism, to the TSA's own "red team" analyses of its own performance.

May 11, 2008 3:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New BWI security (B Gates) is a disaster...except the soothing music..which is needed as wait time is much longer. Conveyor is poorly designed...no place to unpack...all stuff in bins (disaster now will only get worse when winter coats come back.) So, we spent tons of money to make check-in slower and more annoying...but added music!!!

Just watch how many regular travelers now avoid "B" and check-in only at "A". As this is clearly a disaster it will be interesting how quickly TSA repeats in other places.

May 12, 2008 7:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Better ID verification.

A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are. TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity. In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer.


............................
Explain to me how your screeners can know if someone is on a watch list by just looking at an ID when they don't have the watch list to compare against?

Smoke and Mirrors does not make Security.

May 12, 2008 3:10 PM

 
Anonymous Sevgi said...

Good websites.Thanks.

November 9, 2008 10:59 AM

 
Anonymous Jimmy said...

I think transportation security is a disaster all together. Many people still get through with knives and sharp objects. The fact that a watch-list is even in consideration - just boggles my mind. We need to learn to trust our citizens again - next thing you know we'll be implementing the id chips - the mark of the beast.

November 14, 2008 7:39 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home