The Evolution Continues
Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA) became the latest airport to unveil Checkpoint Evolution today. They introduced passengers to the new uniform, training, and new signage all geared towards making the checkpoint a much more relaxing environment while also enhancing security.We sent Jeremy (best known for his work spinning on our evolution Web site) to Reagan National today to get some photo and video from officers and passengers. Luckily, while Jeremy was on location, there were no sightings of puppies or poultry projectiles.
We’re excited to continue to introduce more passengers to the Evolution of Security and I personally can’t wait to fly through DCA again so I can give it a test drive.Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
9:27 PM
Subscribe in a reader
187 Comments:
Phony police uniforms intended to intimidate citizens traveling by air do not enhance security. The only changes that would improve the security kabuki checkpoints would be abolishing the indefensible 3.4-1-1 policy, ending mandatory shoe screenings, and making yelling at citizens traveling by air a firing offense for TSOs.
June 17, 2008 10:43 AM
Hey Anonymous, if we wanted to intimidate passengers, I think we would go with a darker color than royal blue. :)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
June 17, 2008 11:13 AM
Great job. Now, if you can only stop your TSOs from vitriolic tirades toward the elderly and handicapped that can't move as quickly as the rest of the crowd. That activity doesn't say "Professionalism."
June 17, 2008 11:28 AM
Anonymous said... Great job. Now, if you can only stop your TSOs from vitriolic tirades toward the elderly and handicapped that can't move as quickly as the rest of the crowd. That activity doesn't say "Professionalism." June 17, 2008 11:28 AM
You are correct. Next time you observe this, please post a comment with specifics (airport, date, time, airline etc.) and I'll have a customer support manager for that airport look into it.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
June 17, 2008 11:33 AM
Hi Bob,
Your comment about the color is a little disingenuous. If your intent is not to intimidate passengers, get rid of the metal badge and shoulder epaulettes. Someone wanted the uniforms to look more like those worn by law enforcement and they do. Part of the reason for that is that people assume a certain degree of authority, which is probably appropriate for the job the screeners are tasked with. As long as that authority is balanced with accountability and responsibility I don't have a problem with that.
I think the uniforms look great, and I especially like that they appear to include nametags. I don't mind you wearing a uniform with a badge as long as it includes the nametag.
June 17, 2008 11:34 AM
Bob,
If the TSA didn't intentionally set out to confuse &, most importantly, intimidate the traveling public who doesn't know any better, then why spend all the money spent on the new Kop-style uniforms in the first place? Especially the badges? Even the TSA spokesperson quoted in yesterday's USA Today claimed the badges were supposed to garner 'respect' towards the screeners wearing them. Clearly said spokesperson still doesn't realize that respect is EARNED by deeds & actions, not costume jewelry.
There was nothing inherently wrong w/the plain white shirts as long as the screener wearing it took the time to wash, iron, button it up, & tuck it in. Those who couldn't be bothered will still look like slobs in royal blue instead of white.
June 17, 2008 12:09 PM
Why are you taking photos/videos of security checkpoints and posting them on the internet? I was told that's against the law and a security breach.
June 17, 2008 12:34 PM
Let's say (metophorically) that some group of individuals mean to due American citizens grave harm and let's say that the intelligence services (CIA, FBI, DIA, etc.) get credible actionable information on said threat should the agencies designed to defend and protects us the American citizens ignore this information or should they put policies and procedures into effect to prevent, deter, and defend against said actions. Me personally I would rather my government take proactive protective measures against threats that we have learned are indeed credible than take the reactive steps after the fact.
June 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Hey, don't stop yet. You've left off the jump boots, body armor, helmets, night sticks, mace, and Tasers. Might as well go all the way towards completing the garb.
June 17, 2008 2:22 PM
So, what do real law enforcement officers think of your uniforms and those nifty tin badges?
June 17, 2008 2:39 PM
Between this and the chicken insanity, I´ve had enough of deflection. Let´s look at the real issues:
- Why mandatory shoe removal, instead of secondary screening for those who don´t pass metal detectors and puffers?
- Why mandatory liquid limitations in baggies, instead of residue detection?
- Why not purchase X-rays that can see through bags to avoid computer removal from luggage?
- Why are full body scans analyzed by persons hidden away?
- Please explain what is being done to avoid false positives on no-fly and watch lists.
- Please explain how ID is going to help avoid flying by dangerous persons, if the TSA is not looking to see if every passenger going through is on these lists.
- Please explain why workers and cargo are not inspected.
- Please explain why only airline passengers are inspected. Isn´t the TSA also responsible for buses and trains? Didn´t a lot of people die in terrorist attacks on trains?
- Please explain the logic of the SSSS boarding pass, easily identifiable by the passenger, who has ample time to prepare for his super search.
- Please tell us what you are doing to improve personal relations by TSA officers.
June 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Anonymous asked on .June 17, 2008 2:39 PM
So, what do real law enforcement officers think of your uniforms and those nifty tin badges?
********************************
Front page article in USA Today on 6/16/08 re: this very subject & nearly 200 posted comments in response to it on their website. In a nutshell, not much.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-15-tsa-badges_N.htm
June 17, 2008 3:14 PM
Craig said... Hi Bob, Your comment about the color is a little disingenuous. If your intent is not to intimidate passengers, get rid of the metal badge and shoulder epaulettes. Someone wanted the uniforms to look more like those worn by law enforcement and they do. Part of the reason for that is that people assume a certain degree of authority, which is probably appropriate for the job the screeners are tasked with. As long as that authority is balanced with accountability and responsibility I don't have a problem with that. I think the uniforms look great, and I especially like that they appear to include nametags. I don't mind you wearing a uniform with a badge as long as it includes the nametag. June 17, 2008 11:34 AM
Hi Craig,
When I look at a police officer in uniform, I don’t feel intimidated. I respect the individual. I respect them until they give me a reason to disrespect them. I realize that there are officers that don’t deserve the respect and I am sorry for that, but it doesn’t mean they should all be looked down upon. There are good cops and bad cops. Good TSOs and bad TSOs. Good teachers and bad teachers… For every profession you have your bad apples. The difference is that our TSOs are extremely visible unlike most professions.
We have an extremely professional workforce, and these new uniforms represent the pride that many officers take in their profession. It’s not about intimidation. It’s respect from others as well as self respect.
Respect is something both passengers and officers expect and deserve. It’s clear by reading this blog that respect isn’t what everybody always gets. That’s a shame, but to expect a workforce of 45,000 officers and millions of passengers to always play nice will never happen. We can however do our best to make things better by using this blog to communicate with one another.
Also our officers have always had visible nametags with serial numbers on them. They will continue to have nametags with the new uniform and their new badges will also be serialized.
txrus said... Clearly said spokesperson still doesn't realize that respect is EARNED by deeds & actions, not costume jewelry. There was nothing inherently wrong w/the plain white shirts as long as the screener wearing it took the time to wash, iron, button it up, & tuck it in. Those who couldn't be bothered will still look like slobs in royal blue instead of white. June 17, 2008 12:09 PM
Agreed that each officer should take pride in their uniform and look professional and presentable. Most do. Those that do not should be counseled by their leadership. There are guidelines on grooming and how uniforms should be worn and I understand this doesn’t happen all the time.
As far as the white shirt, I have to disagree. For those officers who have worn the white shirt day after day, week after week, they know that the shirts are dirt magnets. Our officers work with dirty baggage all day long. Everybody has their own opinion on what color the TSA uniform shirt should be, but a high percentage of officers would not pick white.
June 17, 2008 3:55 PM
Your sign does not include the exception for Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition.
What part of your inconsistent system should we believe? The signs, a TSO, their supervisor, the website, you bloggers, Kip, or common sense?
June 17, 2008 4:11 PM
Anonymous said... Why are you taking photos/videos of security checkpoints and posting them on the internet? I was told that's against the law and a security breach. June 17, 2008 12:34 PM
Filming is permitted at TSA checkpoints as long as you are not filming any monitor screens. Also, you can interfere with the screening process. (Blocking an officer’s view, getting between the passenger and the officer, etc)
Anonymous said... Hey, don't stop yet. You've left off the jump boots, body armor, helmets, night sticks, mace, and Tasers. Might as well go all the way towards completing the garb. June 17, 2008 2:22 PM
We could look like Germany’s airport security.
Anonymous said... So, what do real law enforcement officers think of your uniforms and those nifty tin badges? June 17, 2008 2:39 PM
Well, I’m sure most “real” officers have more important things to worry about than the TSA’s new badges. At least I hope they do. If a TSO misuses their badge, throw the book at them. They know better… If I were a police officer, I’d be more worried about the many counterfeit badges and credentials that are available via the internet.
Bob
Eos Blog Team
June 17, 2008 4:15 PM
Anonymous, here are your questions, with answers. I hope you'll forgive me as many of your questions have been answered before.
Why mandatory shoe removal, instead of secondary screening for those who don’t pass metal detectors and puffers?
So we can see the shoes clearly since we continue to find items hidden in shoes. Shoes, or hidden items in shoes, continues to be a real threat
- Why mandatory liquid limitations in baggies, instead of residue detection?
To control the amount of liquid transported by any one passenger.
- Why not purchase X-rays that can see through bags to avoid computer removal from luggage?
We have x-rays that can see through bags, that's not the concern. The concern is what may be hidden below or in the laptop, so in order to get a good look, we ask that laptops be removed.
- Why are full body scans analyzed by persons hidden away?
To protect the privacy of passengers.
- Please explain what is being done to avoid false positives on no-fly and watch lists.
TSA continues to develop the Secure Flight program which we expect will resolve many of the issues. Additionally, we have worked with the airlines to make "interim" fixes until SF is ready next year.
- Please explain how ID is going to help avoid flying by dangerous persons, if the TSA is not looking to see if every passenger going through is on these lists.
We have a responsibility to check these IDs and see it as a serious security function. If your opinion is that it is not, we respect that, but disagree.
- Please explain why workers and cargo are not inspected.
They are.
- Please explain why only airline passengers are inspected. Isn’t the TSA also responsible for buses and trains? Didn’t a lot of people die in terrorist attacks on trains?
TSA had a mandate passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on Nov. 19, 2001 that required to forming of TSA and everything that goes with it. We have not received a mandate to require screening of mass transit passengers, some would argue a screening mechanism would take the rapid out of rapid transit.
- Please explain the logic of the SSSS boarding pass, easily identifiable by the passenger, who has ample time to prepare for his super search.
The CAPPS program pre-dates TSA. We are working aggressively to do away with the CAPPS system and install the previously mentioned Secure Flight program. SF would take management and operation of the program from the carriers and put it in the hands of TSA. That way, there will not be as many applications of the program as there are air lines.
- Please tell us what you are doing to improve personal relations by TSA officers.
Going through the new and improved training discussed many times on this blog.
Nico
EoS Blog team
June 17, 2008 5:20 PM
"if we wanted to intimidate passengers, I think we would go with a darker color than royal blue."
Bob, you have no knowledge of the psychology behind dress/costume.
"Well, I’m sure most “real” officers have more important things to worry about than the TSA’s new badges."
So, in your world, no "real" leo would worry about the most hated group in government changing their appearence to look like leos.
June 17, 2008 5:22 PM
Bob, as long as you are answering questions, will you please address my question regarding the ability to travel of citizens of states that have rejected REAL ID, given that the TSA has proclaimed that it will be policy that only IDs that conform with REAL ID will be accepted as valid.
June 17, 2008 5:23 PM
Bob of the EOS Blog Team wrote:
"When I look at a police officer in uniform, I don’t feel intimidated."
This isn't about your opinion. It's about that of the average traveler passing through our government checkpoints. Can you honestly tell us that the new uniforms were not designed the way they were to increase the perceived authority of TSA agents?
"Also our officers have always had visible nametags with serial numbers on them. They will continue to have nametags with the new uniform and their new badges will also be serialized."
Previously, TSA agents had name tags with a very clear purpose: to display a name. Now, their name tags look less like name tags and more like law enforcement officers' badges. Is the name on these new tags/badges more or less readable than that of the old tags? Is the serial number still visible (you only said that they "are serialized")?
The only thing on the TSA agent pictured here in your post is the "TSA" on his shoulder. All that is distinguishing about his badge is that it looks like that of a law enforcement officer.
Bob wrote:
"If a TSO misuses their badge, throw the book at them."
This just illuminates the complaint people are making here. This is just a name tag -- something that serves to let the public identify a particular TSA agent by name or serial number. How can someoneone misuse a name tag? It seems that these badges (and the new TSA airport security guard uniforms in general) serve no purpose other than to imply more authority than the bearer of that badge actually holds.
If you answer no other question that I've asked, please answer this: How has the design, procurement, distribution, and use of these new uniforms contributed to TSA's mission of protecting the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce?
June 17, 2008 5:25 PM
Re: the German Airport Police
Those are actual federal police officers, and do not staff the hand luggage security area. You're comparing apples to oranges.
This is what a German security checkpoint looks like:
http://www.muc.in/pic/munich_airport_security-check-2.jpg
June 17, 2008 5:39 PM
Please address this question:
Why are posts disappearing?
I just noticed another one gone in an older thread.
Is it this blog's policy to silently remove posts?
If not why are they disappearing?
Again, I thank you in advance for answering this.
,>)
June 17, 2008 5:45 PM
Anonymous said... Please address this question: Why are posts disappearing? I just noticed another one gone in an older thread. Is it this blog's policy to silently remove posts? If not why are they disappearing? Again, I thank you in advance for answering this. ,>) June 17, 2008 5:45 PM
Please be more specific. What types of comments are disappearing and what post (s) are they disappearing from? I’d like to look into this, but I have no idea where to start without some more specific info. It’s not our policy to delete post once they are approved. However, there have been a few times that I’m aware of when a comment was approved that should not have been. (Did not follow comment policy) We rarely have to do this and hate it when we do.
From this point forward, if we have to delete a comment, we’ll leave a note stating what type of post we deleted and why. I have sent a note to the blog team communicating this.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
June 17, 2008 6:05 PM
Nico,
Sorry but your answers don't make the cut.
Shoes: if they don't set off a metal detector or puffer, what kind of threat can they be? Certainly not more than anything else a person can hide in their body cavities. Putting millions of innocent people through the task of taking them off makes no sense.
Liquids: limiting quantity makes no sense. Search for traces of liquid explosives, which can cause harm even in limited quantities. These liquids have to be concentrated, hence they will leave detectable traces.
X-rays: if they can't see under my computer, they can't see under a lot of other stuff. Also, why then must I take my computer out of the protective fabric sleeve?
Full body scans: either the images are not invasive and can be seen by all or they are and should not be made. At the very least, the screened person must have the right to see the person viewing his/her own body.
No-fly lists: I would like to see statistics proving the false positives are down. As long as I keep on being SSSS'd, I won't believe you have fixed them.
ID: I am asking how the TSA officer is going to know if the name on the ID is of a person on a list. They do not have the lists with them. You did not answer my question.
Workers/cargo: I saw staff walk right through security, last week. They are not inspected.
Trains/buses: There are plenty of non-rapid transit trains around. There is no security to go on them. This is also TSA's responsibility.
SSSS boarding passes: saying the CAPPS program pre-dates TSA really makes you look bad. Are you saying you are using a bad system for years because you can't change prior policy?
Training: You will not get better officers unless you up their basic requirements (schooling, for example) and pay. You need less people with more brains. Look at Israeli officers. They know what they are doing.
June 17, 2008 6:07 PM
Intimidate? Did you really say intimidate? Funny, when I think of intimidation, I think of much darker colors such as black. Royal blue just does represent the intidation factor....if TSA wanted to intimidate passengers, they would arm their TSO's. Instead, TSO's are told not to try to restrain passengers who breach security, basically taking away the intimidation factor. The new uniforms are NOT meant to look like police, and in fact they do NOT look like police uniforms of any kind that I've ever seen. So ease up, get on your flight, have a drink and read a book. When you land safely in your destination, you can think about intimidation again, okay anonymous?
June 17, 2008 6:21 PM
Anonymous requested an explanation:
"Please explain how ID is going to help avoid flying by dangerous persons, if the TSA is not looking to see if every passenger going through is on these lists."
Nico responded:
"We have a responsibility to check these IDs and see it as a serious security function. If your opinion is that it is not, we respect that, but disagree."
Nico, you were NOT asked about the responsibility to check IDs, you were asked to explain how the ID check keeps people on the no-fly list off a plane.
You can't explain it and therefore you chose another route: obfuscate and hope you can confuse people - so very typical of the TSA.
June 17, 2008 6:39 PM
C'mon people, cops carry guns, TSOs do not. Is it that difficult to figure out the difference?
P.S. Cops in some cities were white uniform shirts.
June 17, 2008 6:42 PM
Bob, since you are answering questions, is the reason my REAL ID question not being answered is that you are trying to convince your superiors that the question is actually being asked?
June 17, 2008 6:47 PM
Bob,
Thank you for the reply.
I know that an older post (I do not recall the title) that got into a discussion of the actions of peoples of different religions had post(s?) disappear.
Today I noticed another disappearance in the recent "Day in the Life" article. IIRC trollkiller had promised to "hold your feet to the fire". In their response someone else offered to bring marshmallows. That post is gone.
Those are the 2 most specific examples I can offer.
Briefly browsing other older posts I came across two other people remarking on posts disappearing. I did not note the article title at the time.
Perhaps the blog readers can help.
Can anyone give Bob more specific info on any posts that have disappeared?
If anyone sees this happen would they please post it to whatever the current thread is?
Bob, thanks again.
,>)
May you never be bothered with kidney stones again.
June 17, 2008 6:47 PM
Anonymous,
You asked the questions, I answered them. If, in your opinion, they don't make the cut, my apologies.
Shoes -- are you asking for body cavity searches? Certainly that would be more invasive than taking off ones shoes.
Liquids: Sorry you don't think it makes sense.
X-rays: Your assumptions are incorrect.
No-fly lists: I don't believe we maintain the data for this, since the remedies are in the hands of the carriers. If we do, I would be happy to find some data points to share.
ID: Do they need a list to help them determine if someone is who they say who they are?
Workers/cargo: Don't believe everything you see. Lots of screening of employees happens where you wouldn't see it, behind closed doors, in the sterile areas.
Trains/buses: I'm not saying we don't have responsibility. If you want screening of passengers on trains, buses, ferries, subways, taxis, and every other public system, please get in touch with your representatives. We do work with all of these entities, but you are right, we don't screen each passenger.
SSSS boarding passes: It doesn't make us look bad, it makes us look like we are using a legacy system that has been in place since before we got here. The fact that we are working on revolutionizing the passenger pre-screening system, shows we know we can do better than what is there, and we are working to that end.
Training: No disrespect intended, but it sounds like you don't know a lot about our workforce. We do have congressionally-set minimum standards, and believe we have recruited some of the best talent our nation has to offer and far exceeded those standards on average. If you feel differently, that's your right, but I have spent hundreds of hours with many of these people and found them to be committed, intelligent, fun-loving, serious, smart, pleasant, security-minded, aware, patriotic, family-oriented and everything else. Sure, we have some bad apples, but with the former military, law enforcement, school teachers, nurses, doctors, professors, executives and every other former occupation represented in our workforce, I don't believe you can say they need more brains. They need more respect.
Nico
EoS Team
June 17, 2008 6:50 PM
More waste of taxpayers' money. The TSA should spend their money on new equipment that can detect liquid explosives and walk-through trace detection machines (like the GE EntryScan), not on "window dressing" to make the TSOs look good. Besides, wouldn't dressing them like police officers cause some people to mistake them for actual police officers? If there is a uniform change there should be a good reason for it.
June 17, 2008 6:59 PM
You're getting testy, Nico, and you still have not answered the question about how showing ID keeps undesirable people off airplanes.
Presenting an ID proves nothing, other than that the person presenting it has been successful in obtaining an ID.
June 17, 2008 7:09 PM
"Why are full body scans analyzed by persons hidden away?
To protect the privacy of passengers."
If the TSA were at all concerned about privacy, there would be no full-body scanners.
June 17, 2008 7:18 PM
Sure, we have some bad apples, but with the former military, law enforcement, school teachers, nurses, doctors, professors, executives and every other former occupation represented in our workforce, I don't believe you can say they need more brains. They need more respect.
I respect people who leave me alone. I resent people who go through my stuff for no good reason.
June 17, 2008 7:30 PM
re: You are correct. Next time you observe this, please post a comment with specifics (airport, date, time, airline etc.) and I'll have a customer support manager for that airport look into it.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Bob, why not have the supervisors and managers at the airports do their job in the first place?
Fellow TSO's should not permit these behaviors and report these bad apples to their superiors.
The fact of the matter is that no one in the TSA chain of command is taking action when these events occur.
To many cases of DYWTFT, retalitory secondaries and other tactics causing innocent travelers to miss flights have already occured.
TSO's have damaged their status so severely that only time will reverse the negative opinion that much of the public has.
The continued introduction of Control Tactics such as requiring one to produce ID if they have it on them or the virtual strip search when no crime has happened harms the image even more so.
You can dress up your Make Believe Cops but no respect is due until it hs been demonstrated that respect has been earned.
TSO's do not earn automatic provisional respect due to the damage that has already been done by their fellow workers.
Their leaders continue to cause even greater damage!
Only a change in direction can save this sinking ship.
June 17, 2008 8:38 PM
"To control the amount of liquid transported by any one passenger."
First, Nico, thanks for finally admitting that TSA is concerned with control, rather than security. So many people at TSA lie to us about so much that this accidental bit of truth-telling is, in a perverse way, appreciated.
That said, the liquid policy makes no sense at all and should be abolished. The only liquids that could possibly do any damage to an airplane are so volatile that no one could safely transport them to a taxi, let alone onto an airplane. Sorry doesn't cut it. Abolishing a stupid, pointless policy would.
June 17, 2008 8:39 PM
Bob said in part; Well, I’m sure most “real” officers have more important things to worry about than the TSA’s new badges.
Bob I am glad that we can agree that TSO's are not "real officers", just glorified baggage screeners.
June 17, 2008 8:49 PM
Bob made a comment about a post he would not have approved.
I have to question just how a government website, paid with tax payer monies, can infringe on the right of free speech.
This is a blatant violan of a protected freedom.
Now if this was Bob's personal site I would have no complaint. But this is in fact not a personal site.
So my question, has the TSA legal staff reviewed this policy of preventing people from stating opinions that may disagree with the DHS/TSA and Blog Operators are still protected expressions of free speech?
I have had several post apparently censored even though I have never used any foul language and have only named the most senior leaders of DHS/TSA that have been mentioned by name in other post. I have made no offensive ethnic comments nor mentioned any racial groups.
So why is my constitutional right to free speech being censored from a United States Government website?
June 17, 2008 9:05 PM
Anonymous said... "I respect people who leave me alone. I resent people who go through my stuff for no good reason.
June 17, 2008 7:30 PM"
So is your saftey "no go reason" is that what you are trying to say?
Its like the saying "it is not your driving but the other guys driving you need to worry about"
think about it
June 17, 2008 9:57 PM
The only good thing I see coming from this is that maybe more people will start seeing train travel as a viable option. More screening takes more time, and I imagine that if you're going, say, DC-NY/Boston and you seem to get SSSS'd every time Amtrak would probably take the same amount of time (more time moving, less time screening). That or everyone will start taking cars and we can say goodbye to any hope of a greener future.
June 17, 2008 10:13 PM
Sandra said...
You're getting testy, Nico, and you still have not answered the question about how showing ID keeps undesirable people off airplanes.
Presenting an ID proves nothing, other than that the person presenting it has been successful in obtaining an ID.
present a fake id while a behavior detection officer is watching your every move, while they are also talking to you and asking questions..... good luck in not acting or looking suspicious.
June 17, 2008 11:20 PM
In response to someone's anonymous question about why comments are disappearing, Bob of the EOS Blog Team wrote:
"Please be more specific. What types of comments are disappearing and what post (s) are they disappearing from? I’d like to look into this, but I have no idea where to start without some more specific info."
Following is, in its entirety, a comment I posted in response to the "Update: Bob Screens the Apple MacBook Air" post, in which I cite two comments made by an EOS Blog Team member that were removed:
Someone anonymously wrote:
"`Bob' was not saying that x-ray images of an MBA are classified; he is saying that he won't discuss the 'areas on the x-ray that could pique some interest.'"
I suspected that, as well. In fact, after Bob wrote:
"can't get into specifics of course, but there were a couple of areas on the X-ray that could peak some interest for TSOs"
I responded:
"I don't think it's a matter of course that you cannot discuss what some laptop computer looks like when viewed by an x-ray machine -- that's hardly classified information.
"Could you please explain why this is something you cannot discuss?"
Contrary to this idea that it is discussion of the image rather than the image itself that is SSI, Bob later wrote:
"[An image of the insides of the MacBook Air is] not a state secret, it’s sensitive security information. (SSI)"
Bob also wrote:
"It is common knowledge among the workforce that x-ray images are SSI."
Bob also wrote:
"Due to the SSI status, the X-ray images can only be viewed by those with a need to know, so the flying public will not be able to see the images."
Chance of the EoS Blog Team wrote on March 20, 2008 at 12:02 Pacific (Chance's comment was later removed, but I still have it cached in my feed reader):
"The reason we can't discuss or show certain things (such as the X-Ray images) is because they are considered `Sensitive Security Information', called SSI for short.
"SSI is regulated by federal law, under Title 49, Chapter XII, Part 1520--PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION."
"We are required by law and regulations to protect information that has been designated SSI. In my office we try to avoid using the designation when possible, in order to ensure the widest possible dissemination, but in many cases that just isn't possible. This appears to be one such case.
"Chance - EoS blog team."
He cited Title 49, Chapter XII, Part 1520 as the source of his belief that these images are SSI.
I thanked him for the prompt follow-up and asked him to specify which paragraphs of the regulation were relevant. In response, he wrote, on March 20, 2008 at 13:04 Pacific (that comment, too, was subsequently removed) that he thought, "paragraphs e-g of 1520.7 may apply to X ray images, especially g." and also cited 49 U.S.C. 40119(b)(1). I quoted those paragraphs, explained my belief that neither they nor 49 U.S.C. 40119(b)(1) was applicable, and asked him what made him think any of them were applicable.
Chance has yet to answer my question.
On March 3, 2008, Bob wrote:
"We're going to find an SSI expert to answer your questions. Stay tuned and thanks for posting..."
We're still waiting for that expert answer.
Why were Chance's comments (first and second) removed? Should the public have to archive the TSA blog independently in case government minders decide to remove more previously-published comments?
June 18, 2008 12:55 AM
I appear unable to get anyone's attention who has any desire or ability to correct an easily corrected problem in your blog notification e-mails.
The links provided in your automatic notification system e-mails about new posts in the Evolution of Security TSA blog fail at a 404 page when clicked.
PLEASE fix this problem. I have made three reports about this failure via your website comment form, each received a reciept confirmation.
I have also made two posts about the problem to this blog. (The previous post to this blog DID NOT show up on the blog, even though it broke NO blog rules.)
It should be simple enough to fix the error in your notification system.
Thank you,
Tom
June 18, 2008 12:59 AM
We could look like Germany’s airport security.
I don't care what the German's airport security looks like. They could all be standing around buck naked for all I care. They aren't Americans. I hold Americans to a higher standard since I am an American who happens to see Potemkin security when I travel.
You earn respect. You can't force people who already have a very healthy degree of contempt for TSA to suddenly have respect for an organization that makes a feeble attempt at intimidating the traveling public. Clue, we neither like you, nor trust you, nor respect you. You being TSA. Get your act together and begin mending bridges you've burnt with the traveling public.
June 18, 2008 1:49 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Please explain how ID is going to help avoid flying by dangerous persons, if the TSA is not looking to see if every passenger going through is on these lists."
Nico responded without bothering to address the OP's request:
"We have a responsibility to check these IDs and see it as a serious security function. If your opinion is that it is not, we respect that, but disagree."
Someone anonymously responded:
"I am asking how the TSA officer is going to know if the name on the ID is of a person on a list. They do not have the lists with them. You did not answer my question."
Sandra also responded:
"Nico, you were NOT asked about the responsibility to check IDs, you were asked to explain how the ID check keeps people on the no-fly list off a plane.
"You can't explain it and therefore you chose another route: obfuscate and hope you can confuse people - so very typical of the TSA."
Nico responded:
"You asked the questions, I answered them."
The OP's request for explanation was poorly worded, but it was sufficiently clear to me that he or she hoped that someone would explain how, given that agents at a government checkpoint will not be looking up the names of passengers who wish to cross that checkpoint in government blacklists, the agents' requirement that travelers present credentials to assist with their identification will improve flight safety.
Nico continued by issuing an apology that suggests he still did not understand that his responses were unrelated to the request for comment:
"If, in your opinion, [my answers to your questions] don't make the cut, my apologies."
Of course, no one suggested that his answers "didn't make the cut" only that he had yet to answer the question he'd been asked.
Nico later asked:
"ID: Do [our agents] need a list [of names in order] to help them determine if [people are] who they say who they are?"
Sandra responded:
"you still have not answered the question about how showing ID keeps undesirable people off airplanes.
"Presenting an ID proves nothing, other than that the person presenting it has been successful in obtaining an ID."
Nico?
June 18, 2008 2:27 AM
You are correct. Next time you observe this, please post a comment with specifics (airport, date, time, airline etc.) and I'll have a customer support manager for that airport look into it.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Color me dubious, Bob.
Right here on the TSA blog, we have/had a TSO say over and over again that you needed a doctor's note or prescription to get any medication through a TSA checkpoint.
When several of us pointed that out and asked for you or Nico or Kip or anyone else to correct this TSO, you sat by and said nothing. And that TSO continued for some time to spew that nonsense that taking Advil or Allegra through security without written documentation from a doctor or pharmacy was a big no-no.
If you won't initiate simple clarification when a TSO (or anyone else for that matter) misquotes or misinterprets TSA rules on this blog, what hope do I have that you will do anything regarding unprofessional treatment I get at the airport?
June 18, 2008 2:55 AM
Anonymous said...
Today I noticed another disappearance in the recent "Day in the Life" article. IIRC trollkiller had promised to "hold your feet to the fire". In their response someone else offered to bring marshmallows. That post is gone.
If I am correct that post was in response to a TSO that posted some corrective and suplimental information with a closing remark of "ok go back to burning my employer at the stake" (paraphrase)
My reply was along the lines of "I have the marshmallows, who has the sticks" (paraphrase).
Both what I wrote and what the TSO wrote were jokes. No one in their right mind would think anyone would roast marshmallows over the TSA or even a single TSA employee.
I know that an older post (I do not recall the title) that got into a discussion of the actions of peoples of different religions had post(s?) disappear.
That was me again. In that case I have no problem with the posts disappearing. The post I responded to attacked a particular religion, my post defended that religion by comparing it to another world wide religion. BOTH posts were not appropiate for this site and against the stated rules.
Fogive the misspellings, I have already shut down my spell checker... time to head to the house.
June 18, 2008 3:36 AM
Nico,
Thank you for at least attempting to address our concerns, writing out answers (but not answering!) many of our questions.
As a Scientist, it bothers me that all your policies are put in place with no solid studies to back them.
A perfect example is when you say the numbers of false positives on no-fly lists are going down, and then when I ask for these numbers, you state they are not in TSA´s hands. This is stuff the TSA should be monitoring closely. It is also stuff you should show the public. You want us on your side!
I have never seen any studies I would accept in a scientific meeting or journal coming from the TSA to support their policies. In other words, you put millions of people through hell and waste millions of dollars with no need to show what you do works. Making everyone take off their shoes, for example, is akin to preventively removing everyones appendix, because it may get infected some day. The cost is just not worth it.
If the "evolution of security" continues in this line, I am very concerned about where it will be in a few years. Hopefully someone with a little more understanding of Science than W will be in office soon and change things around.
June 18, 2008 6:05 AM
From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:
The Psychological Influence of the Police Uniform
http://tinyurl.com/4u3gsr
And please, we understand that that TSOs are not LEOs. Still, despite any denials, you are dressing them to look like LEOs.
,>)
June 18, 2008 7:28 AM
"Can you honestly tell us that the new uniforms were not designed the way they were to increase the perceived authority of TSA agents?"
In another post someone started to tell us about the decision process.
They then told us they were sillenced, unable to give us that information.
June 18, 2008 7:34 AM
"present a fake id while a behavior detection officer is watching your every move, while they are also talking to you and asking questions..... good luck in not acting or looking suspicious."
Of course, each of the 9/11 hijackers had valied, state-issued ID. Why doesn't TSA implement some policies that would have prevented the last hijacking instead of wasting our time with nonsense from the feeble mind of Kip Hawley?
June 18, 2008 8:09 AM
Bob says: "When I look at a police officer in uniform, I don’t feel intimidated."
I therefore conclude that Bob is white.
June 18, 2008 8:43 AM
Anonymous said… I have to question just how a government website, paid with tax payer monies, can infringe on the right of free speech.
The comment policy is designed to allow for a respectful discussion of issues. If a comment contains obscenity or attacks a particular ethnic or religious group, it will not be posted. In moderating posts this morning, I rejected only two, both of which were spam.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 18, 2008 9:00 AM
The comment policy is designed to allow for a respectful discussion of issues. If a comment contains obscenity or attacks a particular ethnic or religious group, it will not be posted. In moderating posts this morning, I rejected only two, both of which were spam.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 18, 2008 9:00 AM
.........................
While you address part of my comments you did not answer the major questions.
1. How can the government engage in censorship of free speech? Has this policy been reviewed by your legal staff?
2. I clearly stated that I had complied with your posting standards, even though your standards place restrictions on a protected constitutional freedom. Yet post I have submitted have in fact been censored by not being posted. Just because you don't like the words I pick should not be justification for censorship by agents of the United States.
3. Are public monies being used to fund this project?
And lastly Jon, your not the only one censoring post, other Blog Operators are doing so and each will have a different understanding of the posting standards. DHS/TSA has an agency wide problem with standardization of procedures and this blog is no exception.
Comments?
June 18, 2008 10:02 AM
REAL ID.
Discuss.
June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
Anonymous asked on June 17, 2008 6:47 PM...
Can anyone give Bob more specific info on any posts that have disappeared?
********************************
There was a post made, by someone I suspect is a screener, on or around 6/5/08 which alluded to coming changes in SOPs pertaining to liquids thru the checkpoints which disappeared very shortly after it was posted. Someone over on FlyerTalk even commented on its disappearance, as well.
June 18, 2008 10:47 AM
Bob:
German airport screeners look, act, and are professional. But that link is not to a picture of their equivelant of a TSO. The link you gave is for what looks like a B.Stadt Officer assigned to security of the airport, so of course you see tactical gear worn/weapons carried. I also noticed his shirt is clean and moderately pressed, the battle vest is well cared for, the spotless HK is carried properly with the muzzle high to port, and the officer appears alert and paying attention to his surroundings.
I'm sorry, but the new TSA 'uniform' is awful in cut, color, and fit.
Color: 'Light-Bright' Royal Blue? Choosing Hot Pink or Lime Green would have been an improvement, but not by much.
Cut: Couldn't the TSA have chosen a tailor who would know how to make something that looks a little less like a sack? Those shirts just aren't cut right, and simply look wrong. The white shirts at least looked professional.
Fit: Proper sizing for dress shirts does not include a 'S, M, L, XL' type notation on the tag. It means 'measured and tailored'.
For goodness sakes, wearing a tie that doesn't double as a codpiece is a must. Wearing trousers that look like they came off the clearance rack at CostULess doesn't help any, either. Simply put, the new 'uniform' looks sloppy, slip-shod and rushed. Even a Seaman Recruit after initial uniform issue can dress themselves better than that on their first try.
The TSA management is missing the 'big picture' here. The lack of respect your people get is not from how they dress, but how they act. Fix how they act, and they'll get respect in their current outfits, or even if they dressed as circus clowns complete with horns on their feet and squeaky red noses. Dressing the your people in disturbingly 'LEO-like' uniforms without fixing their behavioral problems is just making the TSA look unresponsive, unprofessional, unaccountable, and ultimately encourages people to think that the agency should be unfunded.
June 18, 2008 10:55 AM
If you were truly serious about transportation safety, we would be better off putting all the TSA personnel to work fixing bridges and roads: A tiny 1% improvement in road safety would save 420 lives per year.
How much safety will the TSA's "evolution" buy us?
June 18, 2008 11:29 AM
Bob, thanks for your response. I think people are overreacting to the whole uniform thing (and veering waaaay off topic for this thread)
Frankly, the old uniforms looked closer to the uniforms worn by mall security guards in my area (which do include badges by the way and nobody complains about that). The new uniforms look more professional and, from your comments and those in the video clip are more appropriate for the work the screeners do.
June 18, 2008 11:59 AM
"and believe we have recruited some of the best talent our nation has to offer and far exceeded those standards on average"
ORD last week:
TSA - "We need to run your wallet back through screening"
ME - "OK"
I then watch my wallet come out of the machine & get placed on a table behind the TSA area.
ME - "Can I get my wallet back?"
TSA - "What wallet?"
ME - "The one over there on the table"
TSA - "How did it get there?"
ME - "A TSA agent put it there"
TSA - "Which agent?"
ME - "I don't know, I can't see them from here"
TSA - "Well if you don't know who took it we can't give it back to you"
I won't bore you with the rest of the Monty Python exchange except to use it to illustrate how much I disagree with your statement above.
June 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Hopefully something good will come with the new uniforms, although I disagree with them. Now that the agents should have more pride and appear professional, maybe they will start acting more professional. I hope the yelling, condescending, and appearance of chaos around the checkpoints improves to where it is not a stress to undergo something that should be simple and routine by now. Time will tell.
June 18, 2008 1:08 PM
TSO is a federal term:
Transportation Security Officer!
not Guard or not Screener.
TSO is a federal goverment employee, not a security guard or airport employee! all on www.Tsa.gov Let's make this clear TSA can inforce in our area of responsibility and Authority includes multiple layers. just to clarify that authority is TSA working as a team! So respectfully are Officers! Again you can find this all on a site called: www.tsa.gov
June 18, 2008 1:21 PM
Jon said...
The comment policy is designed to allow for a respectful discussion of issues. If a comment contains obscenity or attacks a particular ethnic or religious group, it will not be posted. In moderating posts this morning, I rejected only two, both of which were spam.
Hi Jon, don't believe we have met. I jumped over to the "About the Blog Team" and did not see your name. Please introduce yourself.
June 18, 2008 1:26 PM
Blogger Bob said...
Well, I’m sure most “real” officers have more important things to worry about than the TSA’s new badges. At least I hope they do. If a TSO misuses their badge, throw the book at them. They know better… If I were a police officer, I’d be more worried about the many counterfeit badges and credentials that are available via the internet.
According to the USA Today article, the real cops are worried about the new badges.
I did find it a bit odd that in order to wear this new shiny badge a TSO has to endure TWO days of training.
"Airport screeners will get badges after finishing a two-day training program covering issues related to badges as well as how to talk to passengers in a calming manner."
And this little gem showing the TSA is worried about abuse of the badges.
Unlike police, who often are required to carry their badges while off-duty, screeners will be barred from wearing them when they are not working, TSA Deputy Administrator Gale Rossides said."
Funny you should mention counterfeit badges, I went online to see where I could get Trollkiller badge and I found website after website selling your badge. Seems the TSA picked a fairly standard model to use, thereby making it easier for a criminal to misuse.
June 18, 2008 1:44 PM
REAL ID is based on a false belief that any potential terrorist is going to be "home grown" which just isn't so.
As Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (Republican governor) said in his scathing letter to Chertoff regarding REAL ID: ".... REAL ID provides no guarantees that it will make us any safer, because, despite its good intentions, it has no standing in foreign countries. This means that even if DHS forces states to spend billions and establishes a national database, it would have no impact for those who travel on foreign passports. A terrorist could get a passport from a third world county and travel on it instead."
Gov. Sanford makes many other excellent points in refuting REAL ID but the one cited above gets at the real core of the problem: it won't work to keep a terrorist off an airplane.
June 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
REAL ID.
Discuss.
Isn't that the thing that the TSA said you would need in order to fly?
Isn't that also the thing that 20% of the States has told the Federal Government that they won't comply with?
Hmm it would seem to me that the Citizens from 20% of the states will not be able to fly. On a good note it should save a ton of money by reducing the equipment and screeners needed in those states. After all the only people that will be allowed to fly is "out of towners".
Very interesting cost cutting measure but I don't think it will fly. (get it.. fly.. see Blogger Bob is not the only one that can pun)
June 18, 2008 2:26 PM
"Right here on the TSA blog, we have/had a TSO say over and over again that you needed a doctor's note or prescription to get any medication through a TSA checkpoint."
TO THE POSTER WHO ASKED THIS QUESTION, AND THE TSO WHO MADE THESE STATEMENTS, THEY ARE INCORRECT. MEDICATION OF ANY KIND IS PERMITTED THROUGH THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT SO LONG AS IT IS IDENTIFIED AS MEDICATION. A PRESCRIPTION IS NOT NECESSARY, AND OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION IS ALSO PERMITTED. BY "IDENTIFIED" IT IS MEANT TO SAY THAT THE PASSENGER STATES TO THE TSO THAT IT IS MEDICATION THAT IS NECESSARY. KEEP IN MIND THAT TSO'S AND STSO'S HAVE DISCRETION REGARDING WHAT IS REASONABLE BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S ITINERARY,(however, I have never had a reason to take something that was identified to me as medication). IN OTHER WORDS, A ONE HOUR FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR BRINGING MORE THAN ONE OR EVEN TWO BOTTLES OF LIQUID OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION. I HOPE THIS HELPS, AND I'M SORRY FOR ALL CAPS, BUT TSO'S WHO MISINTERPRET THE RULES REALLY ANGER ME, BECAUSE THEY MAKE MY JOB THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. Read the SOP and don't put words in there that aren't there...it makes everybody's job that much easier, and it keeps the public from thinking we ARE the enemy which we are NOT.
June 18, 2008 2:58 PM
yangj08 said...
The only good thing I see coming from this is that maybe more people will start seeing train travel as a viable option.
..........................
Sadly to say but to make train travel a viable means would take a complete overhaul of the railways. Remeber, Kip had a hand in manageing the railroads and look how well they perform!
Example, Dallas to Miami by train.
Dallas to Chicago to Washington DC to Miami.
Travel time 3 days. Cost exceeds air travel by a good margin.
The problem as I see it is we (Americans and visitors) have utilized air travel as the primary means of long distance travel.
TSA was created to bolster the safety of air travel but has stepped so far out of bounds that it's not funny.
If TSA ensured that no contraband was brought onto the airport secure areas (ramps, aircraft and secure terminal areas) and nothing else then there would be no reason for this blog.
As it now stands TSA harrasses travelers, does not secure the ramp, baggage or cargo placed on aircraft and only spot screens airport workers.
They do not ensure that private jets are cleared of dangerous materials.
Someone tell me how that equals security!
TSA=Theater
June 18, 2008 3:40 PM
The comment policy is designed to allow for a respectful discussion of issues. If a comment contains obscenity or attacks a particular ethnic or religious group, it will not be posted. In moderating posts this morning, I rejected only two, both of which were spam.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
Jon, please post a list of words that are not permitted.
Thanks.
June 18, 2008 4:01 PM
regarding badges.
http://www.walletpop.com/2008/06/17/tsa-badges-we-need-some-stinkin-badges-too/
get yours today!
June 18, 2008 4:10 PM
trollkiller said… Hi Jon, don't believe we have met. I jumped over to the "About the Blog Team" and did not see your name. Please introduce yourself.
Sure, thanks for the set up. I am a public affairs manager in Atlanta and my region includes several states in the Southeast. I have been helping moderate comments for a few months now so I am familiar with the many regulars on the blog, including of course you. Among all my other responsibilities, I am trying to carve out more time to participate in discussions and contribute comments.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 18, 2008 4:17 PM
Ayn R. Key said… Bob, as long as you are answering questions, will you please address my question regarding the ability to travel of citizens of states that have rejected REAL ID, given that the TSA has proclaimed that it will be policy that only IDs that conform with REAL ID will be accepted as valid.
Ayn R. Key said… Bob, since you are answering questions, is the reason my REAL ID question not being answered is that you are trying to convince your superiors that the question is actually being asked?
Ayn R. Key said… REAL ID. Discuss.
While REAL ID went into effect May 11, the Department of Homeland Security offered states an extension to allow time to meet the requirements.
Click Here to see those states.
If your state is green on the map, then it has been granted an extension and a current driver's license from the state is still acceptable.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 18, 2008 4:28 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
June 18, 2008 4:34 PM
Bob said:
"Also our officers have always had visible nametags with serial numbers on them. They will continue to have nametags with the new uniform and their new badges will also be serialized."
I'd like to know if you will be recycling the badges and numbers of TSO's who leave the TSA, or issuing new numbers to each new TSO? With the current attrition rate, that means you'll be hitting 6 digit numbers in a few years.
Trollkiller said
"Funny you should mention counterfeit badges, I went online to see where I could get Trollkiller badge and I found website after website selling your badge. Seems the TSA picked a fairly standard model to use, thereby making it easier for a criminal to misuse."
Well, trollkiller, I make things in precious metals for a living and would love to make you your very own trollkiller badge. Perhaps you could use some Deputy Trollkiller badges as well.
June 18, 2008 4:34 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
June 18, 2008 4:36 PM
Jon said:
Click Hereto see those states.
If your state is green on the map, then it has been granted an extension and a current driver's license from the state is still acceptable."
when he could have said: "Your state has been granted an exemption" because they are all green. Real ID is almost as much of a farce as TSA.
June 18, 2008 4:39 PM
If your state is green on the map, then it has been granted an extension and a current driver's license from the state is still acceptable.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
So all states have been granted an extension, eh?
Makes a statement about the success of Real ID!
June 18, 2008 4:53 PM
Anonymous said… Jon, please post a list of words that are not permitted. Thanks.
That would surely violate the comment policy. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what they are. And, I don’t recall seeing very many obscenities lately perhaps because those who comment realize such remarks will not be posted. As I noted earlier today, the bulk of the posts that I have to reject are spam. Things like “good dialogue, click here to get free coupons.”
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 18, 2008 5:18 PM
Ayn R. Key wrote:
"Given that the TSA now says you need ID to fly"
They occasionally, misleadingly, say that, and have been for some time (sometimes even posting signs with this misinformation) but it's false, and they usually state a few sentences later that you really don't need it.
As of June 21, 2008, the policy will still be that you don't have to show ID, but you will no longer be allowed to say that you refuse show ID. You'll need to say that you misplaced it or don't have it, but once you've done that, assuming you act cooperative, you'll be screened as a selectee just as you would be if today, you politely said, "I don't have ID to show you because I know I'm not required to do so."
In short, starting three days from now, you still don't have to show your papers in order to travel via commercial air within the United States, but you do have to act like you think you're supposed to show your papers, and you will be punished for trying to assert your right to travel without doing so.
June 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Jon, that's a short term solution.
Several states have formally rejected REAL ID. Eventually the TSA will have to either stop granting extensions or drop the REAL ID requirement.
Given that the TSA now says you need ID to fly, and once the extensions are over only those IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements are considered acceptable IDs for the purpose of flying, what plans does the TSA have in place to deal with citizens of a state that has rejected REAL ID?
Eventually, once all the delays are over, this issue will have to be resolved. Will citizens of states that have rejected REAL ID be forbidden to fly unless they all lie and say they lost their ID?
Jon, the real question is about those states that have explicitly rejected REAL ID. Extensions are a postponement of dealing with that issue. What about when the postponement is over?
June 18, 2008 5:39 PM
Jon in the interest of full discloser I posted comments asking for more information about the manner in which you guys censor post.
This post met all posting standards without exception.
No words that could be consider indecent, political, racist or religious. Yet the post is not published.
It seems very clear to me that you are using a different standard than what has been posted here.
Again, this is a government sponsored website, paid for with taxpayer monies.
My understanding is that the government cannot engage in the restriction of free speech.
What do your lawyers say?
June 18, 2008 6:11 PM
Apologies if this gets double-posted, though hopefully moderation would deal with that possibility. It appears that the first attempt did not go through for some reason.
Ayn R. Key said...
"Trollkiller,
Sorry, I misread your post. I apologize. You understood my question and I misunderstood your response. Now I feel like I'm part of the blog team.
June 18, 2008 4:36 PM"
Ayn, you admitted to an error and apologized for it. You also are not trying (futilely) to defend the indefensible policies of TSA, dodging perfectly reasonable questions asked of you, or denying basic, self-evident truths - all of these are behaviors the TSA blog team has been engaging in with disturbing regularity since day 1.
Puts you far above them, IMO.
June 18, 2008 6:41 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
Trollkiller,
Sorry, I misread your post. I apologize. You understood my question and I misunderstood your response. Now I feel like I'm part of the blog team.
No worries, next time I will try not to be so subtle in my sarcasm. Stay away from the tie department until the feeling passes.
:-)
jon said...
While REAL ID went into effect May 11, the Department of Homeland Security offered states an extension to allow time to meet the requirements.
Click Here to see those states.
If your state is green on the map, then it has been granted an extension and a current driver's license from the state is still acceptable.
I rarely laugh out loud, I am more a silent laugher. You good sir made me laugh loud enough my boss wanted to know what happened.
Just goes to show what happens when you make an overreaching mandate that no one in their right mind would comply with.
Dunstan said...
I'd like to know if you will be recycling the badges and numbers of TSO's who leave the TSA, or issuing new numbers to each new TSO? With the current attrition rate, that means you'll be hitting 6 digit numbers in a few years.
That is a very good question. With a 20% turnover rate, badges could get very expensive.
Hey Dustan, hit me up on my blog so we can discuss the Trollkiller badge. I moderate all the comments so just comment on anything.
June 18, 2008 7:41 PM
Ok what is going on? You guys need to reinstate Ayn R. Key's posts.
A little snarkyness is not an attack. What he said to me was snarky, he then caught his mistake and corrected it.
The Blog Team needs to get together and figure out what is acceptable because we can't follow the rules when they are forever changing.
(yes people I know I opened a big door to take a shot at the TSA about forever changing rules, please just walk on past it)
June 18, 2008 8:06 PM
If your state is green on the map, then it has been granted an extension and a current driver's license from the state is still acceptable.
You might want to find a new color for Arizona. Our Governor signed House Bill 2677 that - by statute - prohibits Arizona from participating in the REAL ID program. The bill had overwhelming bipartisan support along with popular support as well.
I can't wait for the TSA to tell Arizona, Maine, Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire and a host of other states that no citizen of those states will be allowed on an airplane.
That happening is about as likely as a blizzard in Phoenix.
June 18, 2008 9:02 PM
I deleted my own post because I misread Trollkiller's post, and then put up the version that didn't misinterpret Trollkiller.
There's no need to demand the TSA restore a post I deleted myself.
June 18, 2008 9:54 PM
Phil, I know how there is the "I lost my ID clause", but my question isn't about the requirement to show ID, but about the requirement that the ID conform to REAL ID. Please, everyone, read my entire question.
June 18, 2008 9:56 PM
re: So respectfully are Officers! Again you can find this all on a site called....
..........................
You can call TSO's anything you like, but Baggage Screener seems most appropiate. When they start acting like something greater then I may change my mind.
June 18, 2008 10:23 PM
Upset TSO said...
A ONE HOUR FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR BRINGING MORE THAN ONE OR EVEN TWO BOTTLES OF LIQUID OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION
...........................
Lets say this person had a one hour flight but was staying at the destination for a week or two.
How would you know what they feel is needed or is a reasonable amount?
When did you get a medical degree that permits you to practice medicine?
Do you know how much of every medicine made is needed in a days time?
Depriving a person of a medically needed item is going to end up with someone in court defending their actions.
I don't think your agency will stand behind you if your malpractice is involved.
Give it a try!
June 18, 2008 10:32 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
I deleted my own post because I misread Trollkiller's post, and then put up the version that didn't misinterpret Trollkiller.
There's no need to demand the TSA restore a post I deleted myself.
Ok I did not know you could do that.
June 19, 2008 2:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Upset TSO said...
A ONE HOUR FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR BRINGING MORE THAN ONE OR EVEN TWO BOTTLES OF LIQUID OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION
...........................
Lets say this person had a one hour flight but was staying at the destination for a week or two.
How would you know what they feel is needed or is a reasonable amount?
When did you get a medical degree that permits you to practice medicine?
Do you know how much of every medicine made is needed in a days time?
Depriving a person of a medically needed item is going to end up with someone in court defending their actions.
I don't think your agency will stand behind you if your malpractice is involved.
Give it a try!
Anonymous:
as I state in my original post, I have never had reason to take something that had been identified to me as medication. Ease up, I'm on your side.
June 19, 2008 4:08 AM
Sometimes I love this blog for its entertainment value. The green states map was absolutely great!
Of course, it shows how ridiculous the whole thing has become. The only solution I can think of for you poor folks in non-real ID states is to get passports. I am of course assuming that a US passport is real ID, or am I wrong? You never know with the TSA (that claims tooth powder is a liquid).
There are many foreigners in US airports. Will all TSOs be trained to spot fake passports from every single country? I suggest they start hiring "rain men" to check passports. No one else can memorize the no-fly list and spot any king of forged document from anywhere on Earth.
June 19, 2008 6:59 AM
Secrecy: the first refuge of the indefensible.
"HSVTSO Dean said...
As for the uniform itself -- I had a lot (A LOT) more to say about it, but as I was almost finished with the six paragraph or so long description of everything from conception to design to implementation, I was informed that it falls under SSI."
June 19, 2008 7:00 AM
So, if the humorous postings are not intended as a distraction:
Will there be one every Friday? Or just after contentious articles?
What is tomorrow's LOL posting?
Do you have a mounted unit?
Can we have some ponies to go with the dog shows?
,>)
June 19, 2008 7:07 AM
Medication that is taken in carry on bags is supposed to be sufficient for the plane trip and in case the checked bags are delayed. Reasonable amount of liquid medication for the flight is the guidance we are given. No we aren't medical professionals but no one needs a gallon of medication for a 1 hour flight either.
June 19, 2008 7:09 AM
Sadly to say but to make train travel a viable means would take a complete overhaul of the railways. Remeber, Kip had a hand in manageing the railroads and look how well they perform!
Example, Dallas to Miami by train.
Dallas to Chicago to Washington DC to Miami.
Travel time 3 days. Cost exceeds air travel by a good margin.
The problem as I see it is we (Americans and visitors) have utilized air travel as the primary means of long distance travel.
But surely rail is still acceptable for short distances that shouldn't have to be covered by air (mostly flights between DC and the Northeast, I guess).
I see the bit about the overhaul being needed, though- so you have to make a reverse U-shape to make a journey that should be 5-6 hours by train at most if there was a direct rail line running down there.
June 19, 2008 7:10 AM
These blogs are making me sick to my stomach. It shows me how selfish and arrogant us americans really are. You complain when there's not enough security, u complain when there's "too much" security, and you suggest that we be like the Israelis and Germams! Really! I work as a TSA officer and am a 10yr veteran of the US Army....I take my job very seriously and would gladly have an Israeli or German officer greet you at my airport if that's what you really want. You take dissagreements with federal policies out on the people who neither write them nor have the power to change them "the screener". We just follow the policies. Why don't you complain about the people who can actually do something about your complaints...Your Government Representatives. We follow an SOP sent down from Headquarters. We catch all the flame with no water to be able to put them out. Most of us actually take trying to keep the skies safe serious. Think about that! God Bless America (and everyone for that matter)!
June 19, 2008 7:33 AM
I've heard rumors that TSA will resume gate screening. Just a few questions:
Will TSA confiscate liquids purchased in the secure area during the gate screening process?
What is the purpose of this other than to harrass people who've already endured the screening operations? I got the gate screening 'process' three times in one day and found it incredibly unneeded (alarmed on rivits on my jeans).
June 19, 2008 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...
"To control the amount of liquid transported by any one passenger."
First, Nico, thanks for finally admitting that TSA is concerned with control, rather than security. So many people at TSA lie to us about so much that this accidental bit of truth-telling is, in a perverse way, appreciated.
That said, the liquid policy makes no sense at all and should be abolished. The only liquids that could possibly do any damage to an airplane are so volatile that no one could safely transport them to a taxi, let alone onto an airplane. Sorry doesn't cut it. Abolishing a stupid, pointless policy would.
If the liquids ban wasn't inforced we could have a case of the attack that almost happen to Britian Arlines and a few other airlines coming to the US. Where the terroist came through the airport with bottles of exsplosives in regular liquid bottles. All exsplosives aren't that vile where your not able to to carry them. It's how much you have of it that does the damage. Now if you control how much your able to take then there is no problem. It's not like they are asking the passengers to drink what they can't take.
June 19, 2008 8:54 AM
Upset TSO said...
Anonymous said...
Upset TSO said...
A ONE HOUR FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR BRINGING MORE THAN ONE OR EVEN TWO BOTTLES OF LIQUID OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION
...........................
Lets say this person had a one hour flight but was staying at the destination for a week or two.
How would you know what they feel is needed or is a reasonable amount?
When did you get a medical degree that permits you to practice medicine?
Do you know how much of every medicine made is needed in a days time?
Depriving a person of a medically needed item is going to end up with someone in court defending their actions.
I don't think your agency will stand behind you if your malpractice is involved.
Give it a try!
Anonymous:
as I state in my original post, I have never had reason to take something that had been identified to me as medication. Ease up, I'm on your side.
I don't know what airport this TSO works for but that's totally not right. Medication you are permitted as much is needed. Now he/she may meant that their supervisor may ask the passenger to take as much needed to get through the flight and a little more incase of delay or lay-over and place the rest in check baggage but medication and baby food and water all falls under the same rule.
June 19, 2008 9:00 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 19, 2008 9:09 AM
"HSVTSO Dean said...
As for the uniform itself -- I had a lot (A LOT) more to say about it, but as I was almost finished with the six paragraph or so long description of everything from conception to design to implementation, I was informed that it falls under SSI."
Uniforms SSI? Who was the rocket scientist that said that?
People wonder why TSA gets no respect!
June 19, 2008 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...
Jon in the interest of full discloser I posted comments asking for more information about the manner in which you guys censor post.
This post met all posting standards without exception.
No words that could be consider indecent, political, racist or religious. Yet the post is not published.
It seems very clear to me that you are using a different standard than what has been posted here.
Again, this is a government sponsored website, paid for with taxpayer monies.
My understanding is that the government cannot engage in the restriction of free speech.
What do your lawyers say?
The lawyers have reviewed the comment policy, as demonstrated by the fact that the Privacy Act Statement appears at the bottom of the policy page. I think you’ll find that the policy is consistent with other federal agencies that operate blogs. And sorry, but I just don’t believe that a government blog is the place for things like vulgar language or offensive terms that target individuals or groups.
Those of us who are moderators all strive for consistency, which I’ll grant can be difficult sometimes when you have to make qualitative judgments. I wish I knew more about your post that didn’t get published. Most of the comments that I reject are spam (like one this morning that said “good topic” and then included a few dozen links to commercial products). If there’s a comment that I am uncertain about, I get a second opinion from Bob or one of the other team members before publishing or rejecting.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 19, 2008 10:10 AM
Anonymous presumed screener pretending to be a doctor said on June 19, 2008 7:09 AM..
Medication that is taken in carry on bags is supposed to be sufficient for the plane trip and in case the checked bags are delayed. Reasonable amount of liquid medication for the flight is the guidance we are given. No we aren't medical professionals but no one needs a gallon of medication for a 1 hour flight either.
********************************
Perhaps you've missed all the instances in the past 2 years where planes have ended up sitting on the tarmac for upwards of 10 hrs at a time? Or how about the AA meltdown a few months ago that ended up stranding passengers all over the country for days when the MD-80's were grounded?
Your spiffy new badges do not, under any circumstances, qualify you to decide which medications, nor the quantity involved, are necessary for anyone at anytime except yourself.
June 19, 2008 10:43 AM
"There are many foreigners in US airports. Will all TSOs be trained to spot fake passports from every single country? I suggest they start hiring "rain men" to check passports. No one else can memorize the no-fly list and spot any king of forged document from anywhere on Earth."
Must be from the "myspace generation" where not knowing what your talking about doesn't impede you from saying it.
I've received formal passport training (not in the TSA, although I wish they would implement it), and yeah, I can spot a fake passport from every country, they all have similar security features that follow general templates, and many European passports actually have a mini-guide on how to use the passports security features, and many countries have passports that are almost identical except for minor differences...
And nobody ever has mentioned that the TSOs have to memorize the no-fly list, seriously it makes your whole argument look that much sillier.
And, no sir, I am no... "rain man"...
Just a man trying to get a tough job done.
June 19, 2008 11:02 AM
Jon stated in part "And sorry, but I just don’t believe that a government blog is the place for things like vulgar language or offensive terms that target individuals or groups."
Jon I never said or posted vulgar language.
Would you please describe your definition of "offensive terms".
The only people that have been targeted on this blog are your most senior leaders by name in many, many posts, and TSO's by group. That is what this blog is all about and they seem to be fair game.
Lastly I don't think the United States government or its agents should be engaged in the limitation of the freedom of speech.
Seems like some little old document made mention of that. Maybe you folks should take a moment and read it!
Is the word Kapo prohibited?
A post with that word was in fact censored by someone!
June 19, 2008 11:22 AM
A couple Anonymous people, citing from a previous thread, wrote:
"HSVTSO Dean said...
As for the uniform itself -- I had a lot (A LOT) more to say about it, but as I was almost finished with the six paragraph or so long description of everything from conception to design to implementation, I was informed that it falls under SSI."
The uniform design and implementation itself probably does not fall under SSI, but the place where the information is gotten from is covered in a big blanket-statement:
"Any information discussed or ideas exchanged on this site may NOT be released or discussed outside of TSA."
And since it's tacked onto the end of the SSI statement, I, with my humble need to continue paying the mortgage, must assume that it, too, is therefore considered SSI and cannot be talked about without the consent of the Administrator.
That said--
To the EoS Blog Team:
You know, a whole lot of the "omgwtf faux cop uniforms designed 4 2 instill fearz & intimidationz into the publickz!1!!" comments would be derailed utterly if you, with your resources that far exceed my own, could get a waiver from that little SSI clause and actually tell people who came up with the original concept for the new-uniform, and lay out the three different ideas that went into the new blue uniform design. I would have already done so, but I'm shackled by that SSI thing and I'd just assume not get fired. :)
June 19, 2008 11:25 AM
"If the liquids ban wasn't inforced we could have a case of the attack that almost happen to Britian Arlines and a few other airlines coming to the US. Where the terroist came through the airport with bottles of exsplosives in regular liquid bottles. All exsplosives aren't that vile where your not able to to carry them. It's how much you have of it that does the damage. Now if you control how much your able to take then there is no problem."
First, the would-be bombers in the London plot did not even have passports nor plane tickets nor liquid explosives; the entire plot had not advanced beyond the notional stage, so it's false to describe it as "almost" happening.
Second, if there are less volatile liquid explosives, what are they? Point me to a peer-reviewed journal article by a chemist not affiliated with TSA and maybe then I'll begin to believe what TSA has told us. As of now, though, there's no basis in science for the ban, and TSA knows it, hence the lying.
Third, do you really think that terrorists would never, ever, ever look at the liquid policy and realize that they could just use more people and combine their liquids? It must be noted, though, that TSA is run by people who think that a terrorist would never, ever, ever think to lie about losing his ID (never mind the fact that every 9/11 hijacker had a valid ID that would pass TSA's 60-second stare without a hitch, nonsensical "BDOs" notwithstanding).
As for the medicine policy: Does TSA really think that anyone traveling with necessary medication would want to trust that medication to checked baggage, where it is likely to be stolen by TSA employees? Do you think we are as stupid as you are?
June 19, 2008 11:40 AM
I do not consider moderating a blog to be censorship. Free speech is _not_ the right to say anything, anytime,anywhere.
I support Bob, Jon and the rest of the gang in trying to maintain some decorum. I do hope that if they can make a joke out of an IED that they will continue to allow for some banter and levity in the posts. Even if it makes the post not completely topical.
I am concerned about the disappearing posts. I am glad it looks as if this is being addressed. My thanks to the TSA folk for stepping up to the plate on this.
Re: posts not being cleared.
There have been some anecdotal reports of permissible posts not being cleared.
I would like to say this: I too have submitted posts that seemed to meet the rules, but they were never posted.
No real rhyme or reason that I could determine. Perhaps they were not considered topical enough. Perhaps, even if they seemed to me to be within guidelines, the moderator considered my statements out of line.
The point is that I do believe that some posts that most people would consider to be within the guidelines are being rejected.
If it happens again with one of my posts, and I feel sure it was within guidelines, I will wait a day or two and bring the fact up.
I encourage others to do the same.
re: Spam. It IS a real pain. They are persistent and sneaky.
Case in point:
Today, right here:
@ June 19, 2008 9:09 AM
Someone posted a suck up message and used it to slip a commercial link into your blog.
,>)
June 19, 2008 12:31 PM
An anonymous "TSO" posted: "I've received formal passport training (not in the TSA, although I wish they would implement it), and yeah, I can spot a fake passport from every country."
First: I respect you for trying to do your job, but when you say I am from generation "myspace" you loose all my respect. You know nothing about me.
Second, you are telling me you can spot a fake passport, but most TSOs cannot. Just that is enough to show the operation is for show. I also somehow doubt you could really spot any fake passport at any point without continuous training. Passports have changed a lot in the last few years in many countries.
Still does not answer how using ID will help to keep "unwanted" people out of the way, since there is no verification of the ID against the lists (unless of course the TSO checking my ID memorized it, which you confirm they did not).
June 19, 2008 2:48 PM
Anonymous said...
I do not consider moderating a blog to be censorship. Free speech is _not_ the right to say anything, anytime,anywhere.
...........................
The government cannot restrict ones right to free speech except for a few instances already decided by the courts. Such as yelling fire in a crowded building.
If this was a private site then any degree of censorship would be just fine. Thats not the case here. Tax monies pay for this and it is operated by the United States government.
I have no argument with prohibiting foul language but just today I posted a simple message with a link (tiny url)http://tiny.cc/L6LwA to a make believe badge for citizens. This badge was not for sale, was not from a commercial site and did not violate blog rules. Yet it was never posted.
Simple censorship in action when all I was doing was making a negative statement about the new badges worn by TSO's.
It is clear that if the Blog Operators do not like your message then it may not be posted. The posting rules are not being used!
So excessive censorship is being used here and in my opinion this censorship violates the free speech provisions of the Constitution.
June 19, 2008 3:29 PM
Yes we are getting metal badges. We TSO's already had sewn on badges on our uniforms but no one seemed to notice. We are sworn in federal officers deserving of the respect that other federal officers receive. We do not have arrest power and do not carry weapons, but we do have training and responsibility to safeguard the traveling public and their baggage.
Having a metal badge doesn't make us worthy of any extra respect than before we got the badge.
June 19, 2008 4:26 PM
I like the new checkpoint look, but why not have a continous message explaining the divesting procedures in the walk up area. This can assist the travelers and have them ready for screening when they approach the screening area. Maybe a female voice reminding the travelers to remove laptops and liquids from their bags. Also to remove their shoes and Jackets, just a thought.
June 19, 2008 4:47 PM
Quick suggestion why not have a continuos message explaining to the travelers the correct divesting procedures. This can assist with the screening procedures, a message such as removing shoes and jackets. Removing laptops and liquids for your carry-ons can have the traveler ready as they approach the entry to the sterile area.
June 19, 2008 4:52 PM
re: We are sworn in federal officers deserving of the respect that other federal officers receive.
...........................
You TSO's seem to think you get automatic respect.
To many of your fellow screeners have damaged your public persona.
The only respect you will get is that which you earn.
Only your actions, as a group, can reverse the negative image you currently enjoy with the public.
You may have taken an oath but I doubt that you are a "sworn officer". A sworn officer is usually a LEO of some type with arrest powers. That ain't you!
June 19, 2008 5:46 PM
MSO TSO said...
Yes we are getting metal badges. We TSO's already had sewn on badges on our uniforms but no one seemed to notice. We are sworn in federal officers deserving of the respect that other federal officers receive. We do not have arrest power and do not carry weapons, but we do have training and responsibility to safeguard the traveling public and their baggage.
Having a metal badge doesn't make us worthy of any extra respect than before we got the badge.
The patch badge did not falsely convey to a reasonable person that you are LAW ENFORCEMNET, the new metal badge does.
You say you are a sworn federal officer, what is your oath or is that SSI?
June 19, 2008 7:15 PM
"Still does not answer how using ID will help to keep "unwanted" people out of the way, since there is no verification of the ID against the lists (unless of course the TSO checking my ID memorized it, which you confirm they did not)."
I respectfully disagree with my employer. I don't believe the checking of IDs are a procedure that improves security in a significant fashion. I do it, and I do it with pride because it is my job, but I think we should do away with ID checking entirely.
June 19, 2008 8:33 PM
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/oath_of_office.shtm
The oath cannot be SSI since it's right there on the tsa homepage.
June 19, 2008 9:32 PM
Blogger Bob wrote:
Next time you observe [abusive TSO behavior], please post a comment with specifics (airport, date, time, airline etc.) and I'll have a customer support manager for that airport look into it.
An anonymous responder wrote:
Bob, why not have the supervisors and managers at the airports do their job in the first place?
As much as I concur, I also know what may happen in practice. Some of these ill-behaving TSOs may behave properly when they know that a supervisor is watching, but revert to their ill-behaving ways when they aren't being directly watched. (I doubt TSA is unusual in this regard; we all tend to follow the rules a bit more closely when someone is watching us.)
Some have suggested that TSA engage in "secret shopper" surveys, and I suspect that they do. But, as Blogger Bob points out, we can all essentially be "secret shoppers" by reporting bad (or good) behavior when we see it.
June 19, 2008 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...
"Second, if there are less volatile liquid explosives, what are they? Point me to a peer-reviewed journal article by a chemist not affiliated with TSA and maybe then I'll begin to believe what TSA has told us. As of now, though, there's no basis in science for the ban, and TSA knows it, hence the lying."
Philippine Airlines Flight 434. look it up and educate yourself
June 19, 2008 10:23 PM
yangj08 said...
But surely rail is still acceptable for short distances that shouldn't have to be covered by air (mostly flights between DC and the Northeast, I guess).
I see the bit about the overhaul being needed, though- so you have to make a reverse U-shape to make a journey that should be 5-6 hours by train at most if there was a direct rail line running down there.
..........................
I don't live in an area that uses rail very well. Just in the last few years we have local (in city) rail. Amtrak goes thru here but the routing is very odd, like the route to Miami I posted.
Additionally, derailings are to common, our existing tracks limited. It would take a major rebuilding to make rail travel a good option except in limited areas like the Northeast and Eastern Seaboard.
I think it is important to note that Kip Hawley was Vice President of the Union Pacific Railway and served on the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation. Our railroads are pretty much useless and now Kip Hawley is leaving his marks on the TSA. The outcome surprises no one.
June 19, 2008 10:43 PM
Dear Trollkiller:
Mhm. The Oath itself? I do believe he's referring to the Oath for Federal Employees, which I will now copy after having retrieved it from the Office of Personnel Management website:
Ahem:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I took that particular Oath on 10/20/2002.
Anonymous TSO wrote:
I respectfully disagree with my employer. I don't believe the checking of IDs are a procedure that improves security in a significant fashion. I do it, and I do it with pride because it is my job, but I think we should do away with ID checking entirely.
Ditto, but I've already said as much elsewhere on this blog. And, like you, I'll do what I'm supposed to do to the best of my capability - but I still don't think it actually does much in the name of security.
June 19, 2008 11:16 PM
We are sworn in federal officers deserving of the respect that other federal officers receive.
Having known more than a few federal officers, that statement doesn't inspire respect. Attitudes such as that remind me of a few of the worse officers I met in my time in the military as well. They insisted they deserved respect because they had rank. They got the respect due the rank and no more, while other officers their junior had much more respect because they had the respect due a person as well.
Those who only get the respect due their rank usually stall their career at some point and eventually do wash out.
June 20, 2008 1:52 AM
A link to a site selling coins has been snuck into your site.
Please take a look at the poster's name @
June 19, 2008 9:09 AM
...or search this page for the word 'coins'.
The author's name is a link to a site selling coins that claim an association with 9/11.
Perhaps this passes your prohibition on the promotion of products?
Thanks for taking a look!
,>)
June 20, 2008 4:47 AM
Just a few questions for a Friday morning before the lighthearted Friday post gets in the way.
1) Is Matt ever going to back up his statement that the TSA can not by law take up any more space at the airport?
2) Is Christopher ever going to back up his statement that the Gilmore allows the TSA to trample the right to be free "to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"?
He made the challenge when he he posted the section for the legal eagles. He or a qualified person like Francine needs to back it.
3) What is the TSA going to do with the citizens of the states that refuse to comply with the Real ID mandate?
4) What oath do the TSOs take that would make them believe they are sworn Federal officers?
5) Has the TSA printed handouts for the passenger to keep, as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e), when they are asked for ID?
June 20, 2008 6:00 AM
It is good to know that TSOs have the discerning ability to point out useless security measures. I would like to suggest that you and your colleagues get together and put your ideas in writing, suggesting improvements in the system based on your everyday experience.
This would make the "evolution of security" have at least one credible source: TSOs. As a "customer", I am still waiting for the Science and statistics to support all safety measures.
June 20, 2008 9:20 AM
"Philippine Airlines Flight 434" is not a peer reviewed publication.
June 20, 2008 9:30 AM
The censorship continues unabated.
I responded to MSO TSO's post about the badges.
No part of my comments tested the comment polices, yet the post is not put up.
Post made before and after the time I relied have been reviewed an posted.
Something is wrong, censorship is rampant and unjust.
What excuse will you make today assuming you see fit to post this?
June 20, 2008 9:49 AM
An anonymous responder wrote:
Bob, why not have the supervisors and managers at the airports do their job in the first place?
Jim Huggins responded in part.....
As much as I concur, I also know what may happen in practice. Some of these ill-behaving TSOs may behave properly when they know that a supervisor is watching, but revert to their ill-behaving ways when they aren't being directly watched.
Jim. I don't disagree with you but as we all know for a citizen to get a complaint form or even to get a checkpoint supervisor to listen to a complaint is darn near impossible.
TSA does not want to hear what the public has to say.
They put up road blocks in the complaint system and don't respond to complaints in a timely manner or at all. If a TSO can bring a firearm through the checkpoint and not be fired tells me all I need to know about discipline in the TSA.
Their isn't any!
Wand Sikes on the "Tonight Show" evening of the 19th of June 2008 compared going through a TSA checkpoint to being the same as visitor day at a prison.
She didn't miss the TSA experience by much in my opinion.
June 20, 2008 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...
A link to a site selling coins has been snuck into your site.
Please take a look at the poster's name @ June 19, 2008 9:09 AM
...or search this page for the word 'coins'.
The author's name is a link to a site selling coins that claim an association with 9/11.
Perhaps this passes your prohibition on the promotion of products?
Thanks for taking a look!
,>)
June 20, 2008 4:47 AM
That one did get by us. It has been pulled.
Jon
EoS Blog Team
June 20, 2008 10:48 AM
Anonymous said:
I would like to suggest that you and your colleagues get together and put your ideas in writing, suggesting improvements in the system based on your everyday experience.
We already got that. It's an internal thing called the IdeaFactory, with a thread-and-comment style build that anyone in the TSA can write to. Other people can not only comment on ideas, but also rate them as well.
Of course, all of it hinges on the suits concuring that something is a good idea before they review it and put it into action.
June 20, 2008 11:28 AM
Badges, we need some stinking badges too!
http://tinyurl.com/3tcxt3
OK Blog Ops, this is humor!
June 20, 2008 12:38 PM
@hsvtso: "Anonymous TSO wrote:
I respectfully disagree with my employer. I don't believe the checking of IDs are a procedure that improves security in a significant fashion. I do it, and I do it with pride because it is my job, but I think we should do away with ID checking entirely.
Ditto, but I've already said as much elsewhere on this blog. And, like you, I'll do what I'm supposed to do to the best of my capability - but I still don't think it actually does much in the name of security."
=============================
Then why are you doing it? The money? The power?
Maybe you are just talking about ID checking, and still believe the 3-1-1 and the rest of the TSA mummery.
"In a bureaucratic system, useless work drives out useful work." -- Milton Friedman
June 20, 2008 12:41 PM
I don't know what airport this TSO works for but that's totally not right. Medication you are permitted as much is needed. Now he/she may meant that their supervisor may ask the passenger to take as much needed to get through the flight and a little more incase of delay or lay-over and place the rest in check baggage but medication and baby food and water all falls under the same rule.
June 19, 2008 9:00 AM
***********************************
I won't debate the SOP in this forum, but what I have read states, reasonable quantities based on person's itinerary. Again, I have never taken anything that was identified to me as medication.
June 20, 2008 1:25 PM
I am a frequent flyer and follow the rules.. I purchased a TSA "approved" lock for my suitcase and what did I get for this a snipped lock and a note from some "agency" stating how they sincerely regret that they had to do this but they are not liable for the damage to my lock. And oh by the way - the snipped lock was not place back in my bag - of course to leave no evidence for a claim ! The name of this outfit is McNeil Security..And BTW I spoke to TSA and they were NOT supposed to do this as these locks have special keys to open them..hmmm think someone doesn't know the rules ???
June 20, 2008 1:56 PM
I have a suggestion for many of the metropolitan airports that have not yet adopted this policy and enraged travelers all over the country. Have a separate line for flight crew, delivery people and TSA personnel returning from breaks, lunch etc. Nothing annoys the flying public more than to be standing in line for some unholy amount of time because people don't listen to the news or read prior to traveling and come prepared than to have crew, delivery people and TSA employees bypass them in line and then get in front of them to be screened..thereby delaying them further. And to take this a step furtherm there should be a special screening line for families with small children to make it more user friendly for them to get through the process with strollers, baby toys, and diaper bags..Just a Suggestion..
June 20, 2008 2:03 PM
I like the new uniforms. i can't wait to actually wear them, though. It seems like it's taking forever to get them out there!! Hopefully they will look great as the team changes over!
June 20, 2008 2:43 PM
One down four to go. Thanks HSVTSO Dean and MSO TSO. Let us exam the oath that I am assuming ALL TSA employees are required to take.
I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Independence Day is coming up shortly, a day we celebrate our separation from an oppressive Government. A day we bathe in the patriotic glow of past victories and future hopes.
The oath that is required of TSA employees speaks to the future hope, the hope that this Republic will survive as a just and strong nation, the home of the free and the brave.
The home of those brave enough to keep us free from the enemies of our Constitution, foreign and domestic.
Starting Saturday June 21st, 2008, TSOs across this country will have to decide where their loyalties lie.
I ask this of the TSOs, are you brave enough to defend the Constitution and all it stands for?
Are you brave enough to live your vow, so help you God. Are you ready to stand before your Maker and give account for the oath you took?
Citizens have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
Will you defend the Constitution or will you demand ID?
We the Citizens of this great Country have demanded the TSA explain what gives them the authority to DEMAND ID, under color of law, of those citizens that refuse to enable such an unconstitutional act. As you can see up to this point we have been met with silence.
If the ID requirement were defensible by Gilmore vs. Gonzales or any other case law, the TSA surely would have defended its position by now. They have not.
Come Saturday will you commit perjury by ignoring the vow you made to man, God and yourself? Will you defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic?
Will you become a treasonous agent against the Constitution? Will you be the domestic enemy?
June 20, 2008 2:52 PM
In my reading of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e), it would seem that a TSO who requests my ID and does not supply me with a Privacy Act Statement would be subject to a personal fine of up to $5,0000.
How do you TSO's feel about that?
You really think your bosses have your back?
June 20, 2008 3:26 PM
Great, even TSOs know that ID is useless, yet it is another policy we are getting and can do nothing about. When will the madness stop?
June 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Anonymous wrote:
Then why are you doing it? The money?
Like I've said many times - gotta pay that mortgage.
The power?
BWAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
OMGWTFBBQKITTONS!!1!oneone!!
Ahem. Sorry. Reflexive action, that.
I'm sorry, you seem to be mistaken about something there. I don't know precisely how they do things in other airports around the nation, but we're not permitted to use authority as a club in Huntsville. The last person that really made an attempt at it was shown the door several years back.
Maybe you are just talking about ID checking, and still believe the 3-1-1 and the rest of the TSA mummery.
Bingo. Personally, yeah, I don't feel that the ID checking amounts much to a hill of beans for the aspect of security, but when I put on the uniform and go to the checkpoint, I leave behind what I think, personally, about things.
It's like being a smoker, and fully enforcing the lighter ban of a couple years ago.
In a few more months I'll hit my sixth year with the TSA, and I, at least, still believe in what I do.
June 20, 2008 4:51 PM
Anonymous wrote:
Then why are you doing it?
Oh, just an afterthought: I don't think that the ID checking does anything credible to enhance security. I also don't think it's somehow wrong or unconstitutional. Now, granted, that could just be because I'm on the inside and I know what goes into it - for example, I wouldn't know you from Adam if you came up to the checkpoint, and once your two steps past me I've already forgotten what your name is, what state your ID was issued from, and where you're going. There's no information being recorded, nothing being tracked, nothing being scanned.
Again, just because I don't think it helps out the security aspect much doesn't mean that I think the whole shebang is inherently immoral or wrong or illegal, either.
Peace. :)
June 20, 2008 4:58 PM
My anonymous counterpart wrote (in reply to me):
I don't disagree with you but as we all know for a citizen to get a complaint form or even to get a checkpoint supervisor to listen to a complaint is darn near impossible.
And Blogger Bob's point is ... let's use this blog as that venue. You don't need a magic form to post all the details of your encounter (good or bad) right here.
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM
Medication that is taken in carry on bags is supposed to be sufficient for the plane trip and in case the checked bags are delayed. Reasonable amount of liquid medication for the flight is the guidance we are given. No we aren't medical professionals but no one needs a gallon of medication for a 1 hour flight either.
With the abominable charges now being levied by some carriers for ANY checked luggage, expect to see more people carrying larger quantities of objects - especially medications - in-board in their carry-ons.
Also, as SOME screeners, pardon me, Officers, have objected to small pill carriers full of unidentified pills, many people will be bringing medications, and even vitamins and such, in their carry-ons in their original containers, which is some cases are up to a year's supply, just to make those screeners happy with being able to identify the pills.
Of course just because a passel of pills is in a container identifying them as "melatonin, 3mg" does not mean that is what they are...
Tom
P.S. Has the email notification of new posts been repaired yet?
T
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM
"Anonymous said... Hey, don't stop yet. You've left off the jump boots, body armor, helmets, night sticks, mace, and Tasers. Might as well go all the way towards completing the garb. June 17, 2008 2:22 PM
We could look like Germany’s airport security.
Bob
Eos Blog Team
June 17, 2008 4:15 PM"
Bob, this is an offense to all German readers here!
With your statement you loose your credibility!
You compare the TSA's with German Police officers, in other words you see your TSA guys as LEO's. BTW the picture shows a Bundesgrenzschutz Officer something like a Border Patrol Officer.
I'm glad to live in Germany, here in TXL we don't need to remove our shoes only if you alarm the WTDM, we only have gate screening no such nonsense with screening at the entry of the airport, no ID checking, we don't have SSSS harassment. Best of all it is working!
June 20, 2008 6:09 PM
Jim Huggins said...
My anonymous counterpart wrote (in reply to me):
I don't disagree with you but as we all know for a citizen to get a complaint form or even to get a checkpoint supervisor to listen to a complaint is darn near impossible.
And Blogger Bob's point is ... let's use this blog as that venue. You don't need a magic form to post all the details of your encounter (good or bad) right here.
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM
...........................
And my point is that this is not the correct place to resolve issues at checkpoints.
TSA is so proud of their SOP's I bet that the issues of wrker misconduct, harrassment of passengers, complaint forms and any number of other issues are covered in TSA procedures.
The problem is that TSA has a problem of ensuring employee complaince with its own rules and regulations.
This atmosphere can only be created from the top of the chain of command down to the front line worker.
When TSA enforces compliance with work place standards will be the day that many problems will go away.
If I were a supervisor and a traveler asked for a comment form I would be eager to hand one over and also attempt to understand what had happened to make the person feel the need to request the form.
The process now is to intimidate travelers or flatly lie and say the forms are not available.
TSA is reeling out enough rope to hang itself and I feel they are very near to doing just that.
June 20, 2008 8:08 PM
After I wrote everything, I decided to come back up here and write this: I'm just a guy at a keyboard without legal training and limited research capabilities as I sit at the checkpoint and babysit to make sure the sterile area stays sterile in the after-hours of Huntsville airport. Everything that comes after this is just shot-from-the-hip from a guy and what he believes.
Trollkiller:
First off, let me just say that I like you. You're one of the few people that post regularly on the Blog that I find to be respectable. Every day I'm at the checkpoint, I hope to see you in your "I am the Trollkiller" shirt you mentioned many threads ago so that I can meet you and shake your hand and stuff.
Now, ignoring the religious aspects of it (as I am an atheist), I have never done anything but to act in good faith in accordance with my Oath of service. And, come tommorow, I will continue to act in good faith in accordance with my Oath of service.
The problem with your rhetoric, stirring as it is, is the fact that it's subjective. You do not become 'less free' to compare a name on a piece of plastic to a name on a boarding pass.
(Just as an aside, there's a bunch of other changes that've happened in the recent past, too, that I think are far more profoundly impacting than the requirement to show ID, such as the narrowing-down of what forms of ID are acceptable. But that's a discussion for another time, if it all - it might very well be SSI.)
I ask this of the TSOs, are you brave enough to defend the Constitution and all it stands for?
Of course, and I will continue to do so, as I have for the years since I first lifted my hand and took that Oath. The difference is...
Citizens have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land u1ninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
...the fact that, until a member of the Judiciary strikes it down as unconstitutional on grounds that showing ID unreasonably burdens or restricts air travel (which, by the way, from the layman's perspective... how, exactly, is that unreasonable? It's showing an ID - it's not standing on your head and doing cartwheels handcuffed), I CAN NOT see the mandatory requirement for identification to be against the principles of the Constitution. I have tried to look at it from both sides, but knowing what I know about the process and the system, I just can not wrap my brain around the notion that it's some massive invasion of one's civil liberties.
As you can see up to this point we have been met with silence.
Unfortunately, you have not been met with silence. What you have been met with was an answer that you do not like.
To wit:
From the TSA's webpage, concerning the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (which I will now incorrectly shorthand as ATSAo2K1
The TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2).
The ATSAo2K1 gives the Administrator statutory authority to establish security screening procedures at the airports. If passengers do not comply, they may be prohibited from entering the secure area.
The Administrator has established security screening procedure as to require mandatory ID verification.
It's a hugely general statement, but that's what the law is. Strictly speaking, I suppose the Administrator could say that all passengers had to wear a neon-green headband to enter through a security checkpoint, and that'd become the new procedure, too. That's always the problem with laws on the books that give huuuuuge sweeping capabilities.
Personally, I think the Gilmore v. Gonzalez thing is more a setting of precedent of constitutional challenges to a passenger identification policy than justification for the whole shebang (which is more than done by the ATSAo2K1).
The writing was beautiful, Trollkiller. It really, really was - but that's all it was. It was true only from your point of view.
Now, all of that said:
If the Judiciary struck it down as unconstitutional, and the TSA still tried to require it?
That'd be a horse of a remarkably different color.
June 20, 2008 9:10 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
As for the uniform itself -- I had a lot (A LOT) more to say about it, but as I was almost finished with the six paragraph or so long description of everything from conception to design to implementation, I was informed that it falls under SSI."
June 19, 2008 7:00 AM
I'm wondering just who told you not to post your remarks?
June 20, 2008 10:31 PM
Anonymous wrote:
I'm wondering just who told you not to post your remarks?
Our local training coordinator, who was walking past me as I was typing it up. The whole thing went something like this:
Him: "Writing on the blog again?" (as he sips his coffee)
Me: "Yep." (as I type)
Him: "What about this time?"
Me: "The new uniforms."
Him: (after reading for a moment as I type) "You know, you're not supposed to write anything from the IdeaFactory anywhere else."
Me: "...Huh?"
Him: "Yeah, it's on the first page."
Me: (after loading the IdeaFactory intra-website, and seeing that he is speaking the truth) "...Crap." (delete everything I had just spent the better part of the past half-hour writing)
Just an adlib, but that's the gist of how that conversation went.
June 20, 2008 11:29 PM
I wrote:
Personally, I think the Gilmore v. Gonzalez thing is more a setting of precedent of constitutional challenges to a passenger identification policy than justification for the whole shebang (which is more than done by the ATSAo2K1).
After having gotten home from another really, really, really long day at work, I sat down with a glass of tea and a slice of cold pizza to read, in it's entirety, the Gilmore v. Gonzalez court... thing. Y'know, the 435 F.3d 1125 stuff.
Firstly, I was actually surprised that it was easy to understand. I've always been of the assumption that legalese is almost a different language.
Secondly, after having read it, I'm going to withdraw my statement that it was just a citation of precedent and not justification in itself.
In the morning, I'll write an addendum to this and explain my rationalization for it. Right now, I'm going to go sleep the deep and utter oblivion of exhaustion -- My three twelve-and-a-half-hour days in a row has started to hurt.
June 21, 2008 1:41 AM
HSVTSO Dean:
I knew by your previous posts that you would respond with intelligence. You did not disappoint. Hopefully you have better access to research when you at home. I will deal with the constitutional issue in my next post, sometime on Saturday.
It is 5am and I really need to sleep, but before I do I want to exam the law that the TSA is claiming allows them to set any security burden they wish, such as the new ID rule.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
And
§ 1540.105 (a)(2) Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
Seems pretty airtight until you look at the definitions. As you may or may not know the definitions are part of the law. Their purpose is to limit ambiguity without bogging down the language of the rest of the law.
§ 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
Before you get excited about § 1540.105 (a)(2) Each of those locations has, as you know, specific security requirements. We are dealing just with the sterile area.
As you can see above we have a definition of the sterile area and the definition of screening. I threw in the definition of screening location because it shows the intent of the legislators when drafting the law.
The the limit for granting access to the sterile area, as defined by law, is the screening of persons and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
That's it, that is all the TSA is authorized to demand when it comes to granting or denying passengers access to the sterile area.
You said "Unfortunately, you have not been met with silence. What you have been met with was an answer that you do not like."
It is not that I don't like the answer it is the fact the answer does not pertain to the question.
If the forced ID check is as ironclad as the TSA is trying to lead us all to believe, proving it should be no problem.
Well it now close to 7am and my bed is calling. If you see any faults in my logic please point them out.
June 21, 2008 6:57 AM
GI said...
"I'm glad to live in Germany, here in TXL we don't need to remove our shoes only if you alarm the WTDM, we only have gate screening no such nonsense with screening at the entry of the airport, no ID checking, we don't have SSSS harassment. Best of all it is working!"
I dunno if bragging about having flimsy security measures is wise, especially remembering what flimsy German security has allowed in the past...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre
Not saying anything will happen but, you know about Murphy's law...
June 21, 2008 6:35 PM
I just want to say out of all the complaints I hear about TSA do you mean to tell me that you dont think that they have done anything right?
Personally I feel safe everytime I step on an aircdrfat out of DCA/BWI or IAD. No one is forcing you to get on an aircraft to go to where ever you may go...so what for 10-20 mins you are incovienc ed because TSO's are working tirelessly to make sure IED's don't make it onboard an airplane, and as far as I'm concerned they have EARNED THE RESPECT THAT is PROPER and DUE. Til to date I havent met any "REAL" Officer and, moreover for those who keep talking about "being a REAL OFFICER" you guys need to keep your mouths closed because you dont have the first cluse about what it means to be an OFFICER of any kind. I havent met any LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER's who's job it was to go out and look for IED's or to literally attempt to control CHAOS.I AM A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR DHS/TSA. TSO's are paid chump change to make sure your family friends, and even you dont ever have meet the same fate as those killed in recent terrorist attacks. Every time I wake up in the morning and I watch the local news or CNN and I can see that a Plane hasn't crashed or exploded in or over the waters or the lands of the UNITED STATES I think TSA has done a GREAT JOB. Instead of complaining about TSO's appearance on there new uniform take time out, and just go up and speak to one of them and tell him or her, a job well done, thank you. Because without a shadow of a doubt most you of you take it for granted that we wont be attacked again, and you are sadly mistaken
I personally want to say Thank you to all the TSO's working in "THE GREATER WASHINGTON AREA" to Include BWI, DCA, and IAD.
A JOB WELL DONE
June 21, 2008 7:33 PM
"just to clarify that authority is TSA working as a team! So respectfully are Officers!"
And here I thought we're called officers in lieu of a pay raise!
TSO-Joe
June 21, 2008 8:35 PM
"My anonymous counterpart wrote (in reply to me):
I don't disagree with you but as we all know for a citizen to get a complaint form or even to get a checkpoint supervisor to listen to a complaint is darn near impossible.
And Blogger Bob's point is ... let's use this blog as that venue. You don't need a magic form to post all the details of your encounter (good or bad) right here."
I bet if you were to come here and say that you didn't get a complaint form, what airport, and which security checkpoint, stuff would happen. It's already happened here when someone reported that TSA at an airport were making passengers take out ALL electronics, not just large ones (DVD's laptops, vidoe games, CPAP's). HQ made them stop it!
June 21, 2008 9:39 PM
I am a TSO.. thank you anonymous for saying your piece.
June 22, 2008 10:20 AM
Instead of complaining about TSO's appearance on there new uniform take time out, and just go up and speak to one of them and tell him or her, a job well done, thank you.
..........................
Why would I thank someone for violating my civil rights?
Not going to thank the crimminals behind the ID policy or those enforcing the policy.
June 22, 2008 11:08 AM
HSVTSO Dean:
I am waiting for you to reveal what you learned from the Gilmore case before arguing the constitutionality of the new forced ID check. Hope you were not waiting for me.
You can see my side of the argument on the "Why is ID Important for Security?" thread.
June 22, 2008 2:00 PM
I have to agree with Anonymous all I have read is complaints about TSA... no one has talked about the good things TSA has done... One TSO helped capture a murder suspect at one airport, and I think sometime last year at DCA one TSO helped save a man's life who was having an heart attack in the security checkpoint.
I don't think to many passengers remember what things were like before TSA came onto the scene in 2001, and yes there are few things that I may not agree with everything TSA does, but remember like mosty of us who WORK for a living receive orders and directives from a supervisors superiors, and etc. and in TSO's case they get there orders from DHS and TSA HEADQUARTERS anyone working in the fields of Law Enforcement, Security Enforcement and especially the military should be able to appreciate understand that better than most.
June 22, 2008 5:45 PM
Hey Bob,
I'm USCP Officer, and I can say this first hand that I personally think it was time for a new uniform I dont know why TSA wore white in the first place... TSA is still a baby agency and it still has some work to do before it will be accepted by many as a bonafide agency.
The new uniform is very much professional and could use some fine tuning in the long run if I do say so myself. The badge is very elegant and yes it is a symbol of INTEGRITY, RESPECT, HONOR, and AUTHORITY that is in trusted to them by the government of "THE UNITED STATES" which brings me to another issue.. "THE AIRPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION" resported in the paper many officers have an issue with TSA's issuing metal badges. Well news flash THE TSA is U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, and it does not answer to any LOCAL OR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES and if I'm not mistaken it doesn answer up to certain FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENGIES... TSA's role is not to enforce the law, but to help save and protect lives.
Thank you Bob for letting me comment.
June 22, 2008 6:19 PM
Trollkiller:
Nah, I wasn't waiting on you, I just haven't had a chance to sit down and do it yet. Look for it sometime later today, in the afternoon. I have the day off but I can't very well sit here and write about the stuff with my wife home. She has this thing where she demands that I pay attention to her. Can you believe such a thing!? :D
Check back in about four-five hours.
June 23, 2008 11:07 AM
"TSA's role is not to enforce the law, but to help save and protect lives."
They TSA really shouldn't be dressing its screeners in dime-store police uniforms with tin badges, then, should it?
June 23, 2008 11:56 AM
Anonymous writes:
no one has talked about the good things TSA has done... One TSO helped capture a murder suspect at one airport, and I think sometime last year at DCA one TSO helped save a man's life who was having an heart attack in the security checkpoint.
No one disputes that individual TSOs are doing good things. And I'm sure that there are plenty of (real) police officers, airline employees, and airport employees who do good things every day in our airports as well --- catching criminals, assisting travelers in distress, and so on.
The question is this: if TSA (the agency, not the individuals) is tasked with protecting the safety of airline travel, is the manner in which they are doing it the most effective? And, if not, how could it be better? And so, we debate here is (supposed to be) about the greater policy issues, and how those policies are (or aren't) executed every day.
Saying "TSA is pretty good" isn't good enough. We want TSA to be the best it can be. In order to do that, TSA has to spend time looking at the "right" things, and stop spending time looking at the "wrong" things. Of course, what the "right" things and "wrong" things are is a matter of debate.
June 23, 2008 1:32 PM
"One TSO helped capture a murder suspect at one airport, and I think sometime last year at DCA one TSO helped save a man's life who was having an heart attack in the security checkpoint."
Nice. How many Billion Dollars has that cost? Actually, somewhere on the blog they list how many people are arrested (not charged & convicted) for fraudulant ID every week. I think they're averaging about 16. Wow.
Again I'd say, concentrate on the real job at hand and do it in a way that donsn't violate civil rights. Don't play dress-up to look like police. Don't waste time with ID checks that do more to protect airline revenue than promote security. Examine luggage in a way that doens't promote theft or open the door that contraband can be introduced. Examine air cargo. Contract with improved screening devices that check for explosive fluids vs. enforcing marginally effective limits on fluids.
Most of the critics here don't object to real security, we do object to ineffective, inefficient security with all the production quality of a bad broadway play. (To those actors and broadway theatre members, I apologize.)
June 23, 2008 2:05 PM
They TSA really shouldn't be dressing its screeners in dime-store police uniforms with tin badges, then, should it?
Wait for the jump boots, helmets, body armor, tasers, batons, and when that doesn't garner enough respect from the flying public, fully automatic weapons.
All they want is for the traveling public to love them as they are and to not complain about the excesses. Wink at them and you'll get the 'treatment' for being a wise guy. Make snide comments and you'll get the 'treatment' because you dissed them.
TSA, you've dug a deep hole for yourself. Stop digging and ask for some help in getting you out of that deep hole you've dug.
June 23, 2008 5:29 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
The limit for granting access to the sterile area, as defined by law, is the screening of persons and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
I might be wrong, but I think we exceeded that mandate on day one. :)
If you see any faults in my logic please point them out.
From a logic standpoint, none whatsoever - as usual. We're sitting around Huntsville taking bets on how long the mandatory ID checks last.
Since I don't see where the knowing will hurt at all, the ID check thing was actually supposed to happen around the end of May/start of June, but at the last second was put on hold. I'm guessing TSA wanted to make sure it's legal t's were crossed and i's were dotted, or maybe they took the extra time to fine-tune the actual new procedure itself.
As for the Gilmore vs. Gonzalez case:
...This is why I shouldn't read something, have an epiphany, then try to go two days without writing anything about it. Hoy. Gimme a minute.
It had something to do with the nature that even though he refused to show is ID to the airline itself, the requirement for the showing of said ID was a requirement from the TSA (a la Security Directive) itself. It's just a hop-scotch there to be being asked for ID from the airline, to being asked for ID from the TSA.
That... doesn't sound quite right. I can't quite put my finger on what it was that dawned on me that night that I read the whole thing.
Either way, it'll be interesting to wait for the first Constitutional challenge to it. The 9th made the decision that it was OK for them to deny showing their ID on grounds of a more extensive search - gotta wait to see how it turns out for the next attempt, to see if it holds up. Apparently, Chertoff thinks it will.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other about it. You all should know where I stand on the issue of the ID checks :P
By the way, someone else mentioned something, maybe in the newer thread (and, after checking, they did - Chris Boyce I believe his name was), about the new ID policy and not having an attempt to comment on it or something.
Found this in Gilmore. Since I'm pretty sure this would've came out as an SD, it might answer your question:
As previously mentioned, TSA can issue Security Directives pursuant to § 114(l)(2)(A) “without providing notice or an opportunity for comment.”
Trollkiller, if my brain decides to turn back on with what, specifically, it was that I read that made me change my mind on the Gilmore case I'll come back and go into it at length. Right now I just can't put my finger on it, and I've been staring at the case study for two hours.
June 23, 2008 7:20 PM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Trollkiller:
Nah, I wasn't waiting on you, I just haven't had a chance to sit down and do it yet. Look for it sometime later today, in the afternoon. I have the day off but I can't very well sit here and write about the stuff with my wife home. She has this thing where she demands that I pay attention to her. Can you believe such a thing!? :D
Check back in about four-five hours.
I ran into that same roadblock this weekend.
Then the wife rents "Good Night and Good Luck", the story about Edward R Murrow and his run in with Senator Joseph McCarthy. It's like "throw some more gas on the fire", I think she may be trying to get me arrested.
I will check back in a bit.
June 23, 2008 8:49 PM
Now I get it you freaking people are taking this PERSONALLY, and it has nothing to do with you..."Personally" How many of you like to be called insulting or degrating names while perfoming your job... hmm no one does.
RB you are just pure plain ignorant. Guys you walk through a metal detector, it detects metal, you place your items in an X-RAY SO essentially you have implied that you want your property to be search, and if the people on the X-ray see somthing that dont belong they gonna check it simple as that.
So you think TSA violates people's civil rights...well I will tell you this for all my hot shot lawyers there is something called the " PATRIOT ACT", and again like the last few comments that had some form of content to it...TSA is a SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, and not a Law Enforcement Agency...all it's searches are all administrative,
THE SOLUTION IS SO SIMPLE IF YOU DONT WANT TO DEAL WITH TSA...'DONT FLY. Find another way to get to where you are going.
June 23, 2008 10:11 PM
Why Not see if we can get it on the " November Ballot" to have TSA and the rest of DHS DEFUNC since none of them are doing anything except blowing away perfectly good tax payer money since we all on here are SECURITY EXPERTS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES
June 23, 2008 10:35 PM
To the anonymous poster who said, "RB you are just pure plain ignorant."
I take it that your a disgruntled TSO. Good!
I really don't care what you think about me or any thing else for that matter.
I hope you enjoy the misery I will cause you or your fellow TSO's every chance I get.
June 23, 2008 11:39 PM
Hello there all I am a TSO I also have worked with several other federal organizations and have been to countless other countries and see there Security make-up and I have to say that US compared to everybody else is very sad indeed. First and foremost problem is the fact that TSO's are not actually LEO's which is really a joke since anywhere else in the world the people in the airport who screen you can also put hands on you arrest, and physically detain you if you get out of hand or become a threat will TSO'S have to wait for a real LEO to show up and actually handle the situation which of course by then the person of interest could have already done there damage. Next about the professionalism of TSO's really most are not that smart sorry to say the one's who are see how eat up the organization is and they leave, so the comment about the many different backgrounds that are in TSA is true but only to a point. So airports have above a 50% turnover rate I mean really that is a joke call-centers have lower rates than that and most pay better. So, you can not provide consistent security if you can not keep a consistent workforce. The cooks in DOD(Department of Defense) get paid better than TSO's. With the uniforms that is a issue that I say just makes us more of a joke and the comment about respect is the funniest as Americans we are some of the most belligerent people you can meet. We barely have respect for real authority and we really have no respect for wanna be authority which is what TSA is when we say about the Germans and who cares about them or the Israelis who cares about them think about this most of all the threats that have been trying to come our way where not caught by US forces but by fortress Europe and the Israelis because there people actually have power I have seen the difference between how we act with "officers" in the US and real officers in Europe that smart mouth goes away real quick when you no that person you are walking to through the Metal detector or is sitting on the x-ray can arrest you if you act stupid. That also makes there jobs much easier to catch the real criminals and people who wish to do bad to civil society because they get nervous around real power, who gets nervous around TSA really hardly anybody pissed yes really nervous no. When the terrorist start to figure out lets stop going through europe as gateways then lets see what we do because we have no controls of our border so it is a done deal for us then.
June 24, 2008 3:50 AM
Anonymous said...
Now I get it you freaking people are taking this PERSONALLY, and it has nothing to do with you..."Personally" How many of you like to be called insulting or degrating names while perfoming your job... hmm no one does.
RB you are just pure plain ignorant. Guys you walk through a metal detector, it detects metal, you place your items in an X-RAY SO essentially you have implied that you want your property to be search, and if the people on the X-ray see somthing that dont belong they gonna check it simple as that.
So you think TSA violates people's civil rights...well I will tell you this for all my hot shot lawyers there is something called the " PATRIOT ACT", and again like the last few comments that had some form of content to it...TSA is a SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, and not a Law Enforcement Agency...all it's searches are all administrative,
THE SOLUTION IS SO SIMPLE IF YOU DONT WANT TO DEAL WITH TSA...'DONT FLY. Find another way to get to where you are going.
Deep breaths, in ... ... ... out, feel better? I hope so because you will not like what I have to say.
Yes, I do take this personally as the TSA is doing violence to my personal rights. Apparently you take my disapproval of the TSA and what the TSOs represent personally. If you can't handle being the face of the TSA I suggest you click here.
RB is not ignorant he is right on target. The TSA claims that 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 & § 1540.105 (a)(2) and it would except § 1540.5 provides the limits of what is required to be granted access to a sterile area.
Sorry forced ID checks are not on it. Because forced ID checks are excluded by the law, the TSO is in fact breaking the law when using the ID or the willingness to show ID as a criteria for granting access to the sterile area.
To most reasonable people a person that willfully and knowingly breaks the law is considered a criminal.
I don't see anyone here arguing against the x-ray or metal detector as those are provided for in the law as a means of detecting weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
The UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT ACT) ACT OF 2001 (PDF warning) does not provide for administrative searches nor does it mention anything about airport security.
The solution is simpler than what you suggest and less economically devastating to the country, the TSA needs to STOP violating law, STOP violating civil and Constitutional rights.
June 24, 2008 3:53 AM
HSVTSO Dean said...
Trollkiller, if my brain decides to turn back on with what, specifically, it was that I read that made me change my mind on the Gilmore case I'll come back and go into it at length. Right now I just can't put my finger on it, and I've been staring at the case study for two hours.
You said that "Secondly, after having read it, I'm going to withdraw my statement that it was just a citation of precedent and not justification in itself."
So I will assume you saw something in the Gilmore case that justified the Constitutionality of forced ID checks. You also said (paraphrase) that you did not see any Constitutional problem with being forced to show ID.
The fact it was an airline employee and not a TSO has a small role as the airline employee does not have the force of law (even if pretend) behind them. But for this argument I will agree that because it was a TSA order the airline employee could have easily been a TSO with the same result.
So strike the airline employee argument and we will deal with the rest.
June 24, 2008 4:44 AM
Keep the change...
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-23-TSA-coins_N.htm?csp=34
June 24, 2008 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...
Keep the change...
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-23-TSA-coins_N.htm?csp=34
June 24, 2008 9:57 AM
.........................
And how much goes to sticky finger TSO's?
June 24, 2008 1:20 PM
Gee. I'm getting an ankle brace in a short time that I'll have to wear all of my life. Am I to look forward to having to remove that for the intimidators, as well as having to have my leg scars scanned for my ankle plates when I go through and set off the machines?
If so...nice. Really nice. I'll look forward to the indignities! What else do you have planned to make our trips more enjoyable?
June 24, 2008 10:04 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
So I will assume you saw something in the Gilmore case that justified the Constitutionality of forced ID checks.
I assume I saw something to that effect, too, but it might've just been the effect of too much work over the course of three days without enough rest. I ripped the Gilmore case apart three times, and whatever I saw that night around midnight before I went to bed, I never saw again.
Evidentally, my imagination was playing tricks on me or something.
You also said (paraphrase) that you did not see any Constitutional problem with being forced to show ID.
Correct, and I still don't - but that's also just my own opinion on the matter.
June 25, 2008 11:23 AM
Keep the change...
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-23-TSA-coins_N.htm?csp=34
I have to wonder just how much gets diverted to individual pockets?
TSA censored my first post regarding this, so they must think there is some truth here.
June 25, 2008 12:05 PM
Keep the change...
That was actually an interesting article, and something I did not know. I was under the impression that all of the money that was left behind was cataloged and sent to the Treasury Department. Didn't know that was changed to add to DHS's own coffers.
Interesting. Right until:
I have to wonder just how much gets diverted to individual pockets?
Oh, there we go again with the black hat and the mustache.
Still, there's probably a point there - but since I can get fired for picking up a penny and not giving it to the Supervisor to do the paperwork on, I'd just assume not take the risk trying to scrounge up pocket change to buy a coke on my lunch break.
June 25, 2008 11:24 PM
To everyone who dislikes TSA...to a point I have to agree with you...To the Anonymous one who stated that RB was ignorant...you didnt have to take it that far he/she isjust stating there opinion which is totally fine thats just how they feel... As a tax payer things in this country could be worst,and yest like that one TSO stated at other airports around the world...TSA looks like PEE-WEE...so I say this to TSA's credit at least you guys dont dump luggage on the floor and walk away like in other counrtries.
To RB or the cat speaking on RB's half Yeah there are some disgruntled TSO's but name calling on the WEB won't help you out..if you really have issues with TSA you should file papers in court on the real.
I have to disagree about the who ID check...When a Policemen ask you for ID it's not madatory, but however not showing him may get you locked up for " FAILUR TO SHOW ID" which is totally up to you. And the same can be said for TSA them dudes not forcing you to show ID it's totally up to you, and if you dont want to show it...then dont, but dont expect to go through the checkpoint because you failed to show them ID.
As for me I like this fourm it's a good way to express your opinion about TSA...I think they have some work to do but..insulted the men in women in TSA wont ever ease tension between them or us..
Yall Be Easy
June 27, 2008 10:00 PM
"Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Keep the change...
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-23-TSA-coins_N.htm?csp=34
June 24, 2008 9:57 AM
.........................
And how much goes to sticky finger TSO's?"
You must be kidding?! Stealing a penny could get you fired, and we are constantly being filmed. I don't see how anybody less than David Copperfield could steal more than a couple of coins. Especially since there is a financial incentive to "rat out" people who grab cash.
An officer at my checkpoint was fired for grabbing a handful of coins.
Forget it, believe me:
a TSO stealing at a checkpoint = impossible
June 30, 2008 3:11 PM
"Wait for the jump boots, helmets, body armor, tasers, batons, and when that doesn't garner enough respect from the flying public, fully automatic weapons.
All they want is for the traveling public to love them as they are and to not complain about the excesses. Wink at them and you'll get the 'treatment' for being a wise guy. Make snide comments and you'll get the 'treatment' because you dissed them.
TSA, you've dug a deep hole for yourself. Stop digging and ask for some help in getting you out of that deep hole you've dug."
Wow this guy must exist in the Bizarro world, TSOs in real life are constantly verbally and sometimes are physically bullied by mean-spirited passengers.
And TSOs are completely defenseless as we are a completely toothless agency.
It's amazing how far that comment is from the truth, wow, I'm flabbergasted.
I say you try working this hard job a month or too, I'm willing to bet you will have your mind blown.
June 30, 2008 3:19 PM
I can't believe all that i am reading! Am I not the only one who has not forgotten why TSA was created in the first place. I am not the only one affected by the terror attacks on our country? People, please grow up and get your heads out of the shade. There are actually people who do not believe that america is the home of the brave and the land of opportunity. Not everyboy loves america... obviously! There are people whose sole purpose is to cause harm and turmoil and our government has created certain organizations to mitigate terrorism as long as we possibly can. Yes, I agree, there are some officers who are not as professional as a person with a federal officer title should be, but most officers are professional. Don't let your bad experiences with a few officers dehuminize you. Before we are officers, we are human, and all of us have a human obligation to be respectful towards one another. You may think that our travel today may be a little ridiculous and invasive, but it is safe. Our goal is to protect you, not upset you. If you get upset in the process, try to be a little more understanding of why we are there in the first place. Instead of complaining, imagine getting on a plane where not one passenger or crew memeber has been screened, how many of you would dare. You all have an option to fly. When you take that option, you entrust your life in our hands everytime. If it is that bad, and you cannot even trust the TSA officers to clear every person and bag on that flight, then don't fly, and don't complain. You may not agree with all of the policies, but they have been implemented and approved by the government officials that you have elected to office. If you can only trust yourselves, then why travel at all. Ladies and Gentlemen, open up your eyes! Stop being so arrogant and so selfish and let your nose down a little. We are all in this together, so lets work together.
July 9, 2008 11:04 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Am I not the only one who has not forgotten why TSA was created in the first place[?]"
It was created because of people like this commenter who were
so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous than was Communism during the Cold War.
July 9, 2008 3:21 PM
More waste of taxpayers' money. The TSA should spend their money on new equipment that can detect liquid explosives and walk-through trace detection machines , not on "window dressing" to make the TSOs look good. Besides, wouldn't dressing them like police officers cause some people to mistake them for actual police officers?
July 9, 2008 4:32 PM
I have a mixed reaction to the new uniform. I've been a screener for a little over six years (pre-TSA contract screener), and have always had to deal with wearing white shirts. These shirts are, for lack of a better word, stain magnets, and nothing looks more unprofessional than having a noticeable stain, even if it's faded, on a white shirt. From that perspective, I welcome the new uniform in that the color of the shirt is something other than white.
What I don't like about the new uniform is, as others have pointed out, the resemblance to police uniforms in color and style. I happen to believe that wearing metal badges do not enhance our professionalism. I believe that attitude, behavior and presence defines professionalism than style of uniform or shiny badges. Prior to TSA, I carried a badge for over 20 years, and it takes a degree of personal discipline to carry a badge. Or to put it another way, I've seen badge carriers either deliberately abuse their official position as well as expect certain exceptions to the rules because they happened to carry badges. I'm not saying that this will become a rampant problem within TSA. I'm just wondering why even introduce a potential problem that already exists in other agencies?
Otherwise, I'm looking forward to the Passenger Engagement Training. I'm curious how it will be different than the various customer service-oriented classes in the basic screener training course and repetitive online learning center courses. I welcome the training even if it turns out to be repetitive because I think it's wise to perform a TSA-wide "sanity check" to remind officers that we're not here to intimidate passengers.
July 10, 2008 8:57 PM
Despite being non-confrontational I've frequently been harassed by surly TSA folks at the Atlanta airport who clearly relish the temporary power they have over business travelers, the idea that these types are going to be emboldened further by being given badges makes me shudder.
July 11, 2008 3:58 PM
First off, I do not work for TSA, so do not take my comments as an employee. I do, however, deal with TSA on a daily basis.
What I'd like to know from everone who is complaining here, is why is it that when it comes to air travel, the public just needs someone or something to complain about?
If it's not the lines at check in, it's that they took your $3.00 bottle of shampoo (that can be replaced when you get where you're going,and being it's been almost 2 years since the ban started, you should know to pack it in your suitcase), or that your flight is late, or that you didn't get your inflight snack, etc.
Leave these poor people alone. They are dealing with all your complaints and temper tantrums while trying to make sure that you are safe on your flight, and that we don't have a repeat of 9/11. Of course, if TSA wasn't here and we had another 9/11, you would all be up in arms about why the government wasn't doing something to prevent it.
In fact, if I remember correctly, right after 9/11, the public was all for the federlization of the airport security screeners, and if memory serves, we haven't had a 9/11 since...someone please correct me there if I'm wrong.
The security process takes all of about 2 minutes at most, if you just follow whats asked. Go in with a smile, do what's asked of you, and be on your way. And remember to thank these poor screeners who put up with so much grief from the general public.
They are there, after all, for your safety
July 12, 2008 11:07 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home