Smooth...
Lotion is designed to keep you smooth, but apparently not smooth enough to fool our Millimeter Wave (MMW) machines. Recently, a passenger concealed a 4 oz. bottle of lotion on their person for the sole reason that it was expensive and they didn’t want to lose it.Of course, many of you are saying, “Thank the heavens for the TSA. Without them, a harmless bottle of lotion would have made it onto an airplane. “
While the sarcasm is expected, what you don’t know is our intelligence has shown us that terrorists with dry flaky skin are unable to fulfill their missions. So it’s vital to keep all lotions off of airplanes.
I kid, I kid, but on a serious note, what if it wasn’t lotion? What if it was liquid explosives, or a block of plastic explosives?
The success story here is not that we kept a bottle of lotion off of a plane, but we found an intentionally hidden item on a passenger. We found a hidden item and knew exactly where it was without having the passenger undergo a hand-wanding or patdown.
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: liquids, mission, technology
posted by Bob at
3:07 PM
Subscribe in a reader
98 Comments:
If it was explosive, the real terrorist would know better and divide it into 2 flasks and put it in the freedom baggie.
March 10, 2009 3:33 PM
"If it was explosive, the real terrorist would know better and divide it into 2 flasks and put it in the freedom baggie."
Another reminder that TSA's liquid policies are pointless and do nothing to protect anyone!
March 10, 2009 4:07 PM
I have no problem with you detecting the bottle, or inspecting it. I have a problem with it (and by extension, all such products) still not being allowed on board even after it is determined that it is not an explosive. While extreme critics of TSA will never be satisfied, policies that have no basis in logic make it hard for anyone to defend you.
I suspect the liquid rule will be rescinded 3-6 months after TSA finally gets a new administrator. I'm guessing around Thanksgiving or Christmas time. Nice PR for the new administration that way.
March 10, 2009 4:08 PM
At what cost Bob?
Not the $170,000 each of these machines cost, which is significant, but the loss of freedom that TSA has rained down on the citizens of America.
We are no better than a police state in this nations airports.
I am ashamed of what TSA and it's employees are doing to this country.
March 10, 2009 4:10 PM
I hope you arrested and prosecuted this person trying to conceal the lotion. If there are no consequences for trying to break your rules, then the rules are useless. Real terrorists can keep trying until they have a fool-proof way around your security.
March 10, 2009 4:12 PM
Good job guys and good catch.
It's a funny post as well. I just can not resist Bob...
Thank the heavens for the TSA. Without them, a harmless bottle of lotion would have made it onto an airplane.
J/k of course.
Later,
-H2H
March 10, 2009 4:40 PM
Out of curiosity, was this individual prosecuted? Or can you not comment on that? It would seem that this would fall under intentional concealment of a prohibited item.
March 10, 2009 4:44 PM
I just hope you annoyed the person with the lotion so much, they make a video as entertaining as TSA gangsta!
March 10, 2009 5:00 PM
"Anonymous said...
If it was explosive, the real terrorist would know better and divide it into 2 flasks and put it in the freedom baggie."
Or identical twin terrorists could each carry one bottle onto the plane.
March 10, 2009 5:12 PM
I'm rather confused about the purpose of this blog post.
On one hand, it sounds like you're crowing about the (first?) "success" of your new Virtual Strip Search (VSS) machine. Since it was merely lotion, this is arguably yet another false positive that you feel compelled to define as a "success" in the absence of detecting any actual threat to aviation. But I'll nonetheless give you credit, since the VSS did successfully catch someone who was concealing a Prohibited Item, irrespective of whether it actually protected aviation from harm.
But I don't know what to make of the levity and snarkiness of the post. Are you winking at us and acknowledging what we all know, that the War On Liquids is stupid and ridiculous? Or are you merely mocking us yet again for our inexcusable failure to recognize the Indisputable (though SSI) Fact that the War On Liquids is Very Sensible and Very Effective Protection from a Truly Horrible Threat?
Either way, you're not doing anything to make us accept and welcome your VSS machines. Yes, they are surely more effective at detecting Prohibited Items (dangerous or otherwise) than anything the TSA currently has in its arsenal. But does it justify an escalation of our loss of privacy and dignity? Your post certainly doesn't offer anything persuasive to suggest that it does. But of course that doesn't matter. We'll have no choice but to submit to a humiliating and degrading strip search and bare all for the unknown "officer" hidden away in some secret room, following secret procedures that we're supposed to believe will protect our privacy but without any accountability to ensure that they actually do. And we'll do it now if we want to fly today.
March 10, 2009 5:36 PM
Let me ask a genuinely serious question about the Virtual Strip Search:
Currently, when I go through a checkpoint, I divest myself of everything but the clothes I'm wearing and my wallet. Before I get to the airport, I carefully remove everything metal from my wallet. I leave it in my trouser pocket, and it never alarms because there's nothing metal in it.
Under the new system, I would go through a virtual strip search that would see my wallet as a prohibited/dangerous object. As a result I would be patted down and/or ordered to remove my wallet and get strip searched again.
I leave my wallet in my pocket for reasons that are obvious to everyone (though possibly not to the Security Experts who design the TSA's systems and procedures). It's the one item that I absolutely do not want to be separated from, and do not wish to place in a plastic bin where it's easily accessible to anyone with fleet fingers who might want it.
Is the scenario I described accurate? If so, how might I inform the Security Experts who designed the system that they are forcing passengers to accept an increased risk of a costly common crime in exchange for a questionable promise of potentially improved protection from an extremely rare act of terrorism?
March 10, 2009 5:42 PM
I cannot believe that you are wasting time with this kind of nonsensical posting, Bob.
Getting lots of flack about the virtual strip search and need to try to justify it?
March 10, 2009 5:56 PM
Bob, people asked repeatedly in your other post for policies regarding children and your electronic strip search machines. Could you please tell us what you will do to young travelers at airports where passengers are required to either submit to this electronic strip search or a pat-down so that parents can prepare their children for what would otherwise be -- and still likely will be -- a traumatic experience? You could just point us to a written copy of the relevant rules if you'd like.
Also, note that the European Court of Justice recently ruled that unpublished European Union luggage restrictions could not be enforced because passengers had no way of knowing exactly what was prohibited. I've been writing the same thing about your unpublished luggage restrictions, but you at TSA don't seem to understand.
Please publish a list of all the rules and regulations that you will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint).
I'm not asking for tips for travelers, suggestions on how to pack our bags, hints, clues, guidelines, or press releases. I'm not asking to see TSA's super-secret procedures (those that thousands of lowest-level-of-TSA airport security guards who turn over at a rate of somewhere around 25% per year, are allowed to see), not a pointer to the entire TSA "guidelines for travelers" page, the entire TSA Web site (filled, as noted here and acknowledged by EoS staff with inconsistencies and inaccuracies), the entire U.S. Government Web, or the whole Internet -- just a list of the rules TSA imposes on travelers at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint.
Note that on November 12, 2008, in the "Family/Special Needs Lanes Coming to All Airports in Time for Thanksgiving Travel" post, Paul at TSA wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational," but that despite repeated requests for an update on his progress, we've heard nothing more about it. What's the current status?
Reporting for The Times of London, David Charter writes (in "Tennis player's victory over secret list of banned aircraft hand luggage," published March 10, 2009):
"A tennis player today won his case at the European Court of Justice against airport security staff who believed that his racquets posed a terrorist threat and threw him off a flight.
"Judges ruled that the unpublished European Union register of hand luggage restrictions could not be enforced because passengers had no way of knowing exactly what was prohibited.
[...]
"[The case] highlighted what one legal adviser called the "fundamental absurdity" of European anti-terror regulations from 2003 that outlawed a range of possible weapons from the aircraft cabin — but were not made public for security reasons.
[...]
Sarah Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, said: `This categorical judgement is a victory for democracy and openness, and a slap in the face of the European Commission and EU governments who thought Kafkaesque methods acceptable.
`The Court has now agreed with our protest that it cannot be right for 500 million EU citizens to be told to obey laws they cannot read for themselves.'"
TSA's un-American actions endanger our freedom. Your agency is a menace.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
March 10, 2009 6:58 PM
Think about it folks. If that bottle was of such importance to the passenger that they are willing to risk problems with the TSA, why not put it in their checked luggage? Or leave it at home, where there is absolutely no chance of issues?
What if it had not been a bottle? A knife? A gun? An actual explosive? How about an explosive component, part of a binary explosive?
She lost the lotion not because of it being a lotion, but because of the size of the bottle. 4 ounces. Even with the baggie it would not have gotten on the plane. Think about it.
March 10, 2009 7:16 PM
"I kid, I kid, but on a serious note, what if it wasn’t lotion?"
But it was lotion!
March 10, 2009 8:25 PM
LOL, Terrorists with flakey skin.... FINALLY the TSA Stands up for themselves against these trolls!
March 10, 2009 8:38 PM
Of course, many of you are saying, “Thank the heavens for the TSA. Without them, a harmless bottle of lotion would have made it onto an airplane. “
Good thing you said it for me, because that's exactly what I think. When you actually catch someone who is a real threat to a flight let us know. Did they get arrested for concealing a 4oz bottle, after all they violated the TSA's secret rules.
How many more puppy posts are we going to have to endure?
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 10, 2009 10:04 PM
[sarcasm]
Oh! Thank goodness they were caught! With 0.6 ounce too much lotion in a single container, just imagine how much danger all those other travelers could have been in!
The world is now so much safer. I will definitely sleep more easily tonight.
[/sarcasm]
----
After the lotion container six tenths of an ounce larger than the arbitrary size set by TSA was discovered by the $170,000 dollar electronic strip search machine, and it was found that the contents were nothing more than an expensive lotion, what actions were taken?
I assume the lotion was confiscated after being proven safe and the traveler fined for the temerity of trying to smuggle a point six ounce too large container aboard a commercial airliner.
[sarcasm]
What is the fine or punishment for that horrendous a terrorist act? We MUST know! When and where will the trial of this terrorist be held?
[/sarcasm]
Some day some non-terrorist is just going to get so tired of the constant overbearing hassles of the TSA's security theater and destroy one of their federal chokepoints just on principal.
----
BTW, any comments from that side of the line scratched in the sand on the recent European court ruling on the "secret rules" for travel in Europe, and the potential for a similar suit and ruling here in the United States against the TSA?
Seems a shame that the Europeans understand the existence of secret rules and secret laws not being a valid part of a democratic society better than we do.
The only good part of that is that at least SOMEONE in a court SOMEWHERE understands, and maybe someday that basic premise of a democracy will trickle back into the United States.
Maybe we will be shamed into once again following and defending our constitution.
It's a sad, sad world we live in today. Sad.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
March 10, 2009 10:59 PM
What is interesting is that you triumphly claim as a success what is a failure of the system. This is a false positive, i.e. an error.
March 11, 2009 4:57 AM
It is fairly easy to smuggle small amounts of either liquid or solid explosives though the security checkout as it stands.
The only current working defences are either sniffers or their canine counterpart.
Nobody would carry this material on their person because existing spot checks might pick it up. It is far easier to conceal it within a piece of carry on.
As far as turning this combustible material into an explosive, you can purchase a high pressure capsule from the duty free area of an airport.
So I guess my point is, save $170k on one of these and buy a sniffer or explosives dog.
March 11, 2009 7:20 AM
Why the obsession with liquids? Plenty of explosives can be made using dry powder in fact I think the Chinese invented one a few thousand years ago!
March 11, 2009 8:26 AM
"hink about it folks. If that bottle was of such importance to the passenger that they are willing to risk problems with the TSA, why not put it in their checked luggage?"
So it can be lost and/or stolen and certainly not available during the flight and airports? (Not to mention, now that TSA is so stupid about carryons the airlines figured out to charge $50/checked bag!) Many people have serious skin conditions that require frequent applications of specialized lotions.
March 11, 2009 9:32 AM
Dunstan @ "Or identical twin terrorists could each carry one bottle onto the plane."
Or she could have carried the bottle though the metal detector.
March 11, 2009 9:35 AM
Look at the person in the scanner, hands raised like some criminal.
I will always refuse those units.
March 11, 2009 10:18 AM
TSO Ron: "What if it had been a gun."
See the problem with that line of reasoning is that a gun is a gun. A gun can't be put to other than nefarious purposes.
It's a bad analogy to the lotion example. Chances are, lotion is innocuous. Sure, it might have been part of some magical binary explosive, but it almost definitely wasn't. And I'll bet you guys just chucked it in a big bin near the checkpoint anyway. (Hey, if it's so potentially dangerous, shouldn't you call the bomb squad?)
Bad analogy is bad.
March 11, 2009 10:33 AM
I often "smuggle" bottles of liquids in my pants pocket through security. Why? Because I don't like to check luggage. I can pack everything I need for a week's trip in a backpack (that still fits under the seat in front of me). This way the airlines can't lose my luggage and I don't have the huge time penalty imposed on me that waiting for my luggage brings.
The problem is that my Freedom Baggie is full after I've stuffed my toothpaste, contact lens stuff, deodorant, medications, etc. in it. I like to carry hand sanitizer too, and sometimes that just won't fit in the Freedom Baggie. So I stick it in my pockets.
After all, there's no penalty for trying and failing to sneak innocuous liquids through, so why not. The worst thing that happens is I say, "Oops, forgot that was there, I was concentrating on getting all the metal out I just forgot. Sorry."
It wouldn't surprise me if that's why the lady was trying to smuggle it through.
March 11, 2009 10:40 AM
What's the virtual strip-search policy for small children who cannot stand in the machine, Bob? I will never let my child into a virtual strip-search machine, and any TSO who tries to take her away from me will find he is missing a hand after the attempt.
March 11, 2009 11:52 AM
Very good question - what if it was liquid explosive?
Well, that person would be more deserving of a Nobel Prize than an arrest warrant because they have discovered what scientists say is impossible: a liquid explosive that is safe to transport.
That mysterious liquid, brewed at Hogwarts, is the basis for the 3-1-1 rule.
March 11, 2009 11:57 AM
I would like to second Phil`s request that someone finally answer what is being done with children at checkpoints that use MMW as a primary screening tool. I have asked many times before, it is a simple question, and it should not go unanswered, particularly considering how futile (actually self-destructing) that last post was.
March 11, 2009 12:07 PM
If instead of an MMW, a sniffer/puffer was used, you would not have detected the lotion (first advantage) and would detect explosives (second advantage). In fact, you would detect explosives even if they were inside the persons body cavities, that can hold substantially more than 4 oz.
March 11, 2009 12:22 PM
Germany decided a few months ago that MMW WBI "Strip Search" machines were an affront to civilized peoples and rejected there use.
The EU Courts have decided that Secret Lists of prohibited items was unlawful.
It seems United States TSA is out of step with the rest of the civilized world.
Now remind me, how many terrorist has TSA found that have been charged and convicted?
March 11, 2009 12:25 PM
While TSA is hard at work trying to justify these new Strip Search machines I have been taking a look at the cost to taxpayers to bring this technology to an airport near you.
I have seen references to some 430 plus airports that TSA type services are provided at. I would think large airports such as Chicago, New York, Alanta, Dallas and such have multiple checkpoints and will need upwards of 20 of these machines each while smaller airports may do with one or two.
Assuming an average across the nation of say 10 Strip Search machines at 430 airports the cost is just staggering.
Here is the math;
$170,000.00 for one MMW Strip Search Machine.
430 Airports Equiped
10 Strip Search Machines on average per airport (could be understated).
That comes to a nice cool figure of,
$731,000,000.00
This cost for no real improvement of security because current methods work as evidence by no events since inception of TSA.
Money wasted for nothing when taxpayers are already getting hammered from all sides by problematic economic conditions.
$731,000,000.00 to find one little 4 ounce bottle of lotion.
Good job TSA!
March 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Smuggler,
Take your contact stuff out of the freedom baggie. They are considered medical and are exempt from bagging, thus creating more room for all your other liquids.
March 11, 2009 12:50 PM
Wow, is that all you have to tell us from thousands of MMW scans done in the last few weeks? Truly pathetic.
March 11, 2009 1:05 PM
TSO Ron: "What if it had been a gun."
Another Anonymous poster said:
"See the problem with that line of reasoning is that a gun is a gun. A gun can't be put to other than nefarious purposes."
Sure it can. Police do this every day, as do FAM's and other forms of LEO's.
Another Anonymous poster continued:
"It's a bad analogy to the lotion example. Chances are, lotion is innocuous. Sure, it might have been part of some magical binary explosive, but it almost definitely wasn't. And I'll bet you guys just chucked it in a big bin near the checkpoint anyway. (Hey, if it's so potentially dangerous, shouldn't you call the bomb squad?)"
I refer you to the following link, maybe you can find some useful information there.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_bojinka
Another Anonymous poster finnishes with:
"Bad analogy is bad."
Opinions vary, but personally i think it demonstrates a significant point. Someone tried to knowingly smuggle a prohibited item through teh checkpoint and didnt make it. The same attempt could have been made with a weapon and would have met with the same results.
March 11, 2009 2:03 PM
Let me know when you find a terrorist.
March 11, 2009 2:31 PM
I hear that the TSA has been trying to find a way to detect through the machine what exactly is inside bottles. This would really be good for people not having to throw everything away before they enter security. I think with the amount of technology we have right now, there has to be a way to detect what exactly is inside a lotion bottle or a water bottle. I know that some often Hydrogen Peroxide is mistaken for water and that can be used for explosives on airplanes, and it can easily be mistaken for water, but they are getting closer to ways of detecting the difference between that and water in a machine. It's just such a hassle to have to check my bag--even if I don't have to--just because I have lotion in there that I can't bring on the plane, when I am a completely harmless human being. So, thank you for keeping us safe by going through the huge security process, but I am sure with our technology now there can be more done. This is a new age!
March 11, 2009 2:54 PM
Why couldn't you use the sniffer you use on medical liquids, verify it was harmless lotion, and let it on the plane?
The thing that's hard to understand and simultaneously extremely infuriating is that you seem to know that the bottle contained harmless lotion, but you still kept it off the plane.
A pointless rule enforced blindly. Nobody wins and civil rights loses. Business as usual at the TSA.
Bob, it's clear that you know your post is going to sound ridiculous to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Why not address our very legitimate concerns directly instead of proclaiming this a triumph and (metaphorically) skipping away giggling?
P.S Still waiting for a list of rules.
March 11, 2009 2:58 PM
You know, I just noticed something, Eric is like the 50th name that is followed by "one of the 5-6.... You guys need math lessons or something! Now, this is a good illustration of the problems we encounter everyday. I understand that a lot of people will say "It was a 4oz bottle of lotion!", to which I reply "It is a prohibited item. No discussion, no arguing, no problem, the item is a prohib, therefore it is not allowed. You can argue all you want, but the machine did its job, the passenger was asked about it and processed from there. This is not a false positive, a false positive is when the machine "tells" you that the person has a machine gun in their pocket, when they actually have a LAW rocket (this is an exaggeration, but you get the basic idea). This is a case of the machine registering something that COULD have been a threat based the fact that an UNKNOWN object was there. Once again, the machine reacted in the correct manner, the TSO crew on scene confronted the passenger as they should have, and the item was resolved. This is a case of the machine working, the staff working and the passenger making an attempt to conceal an item that is prohibited (for which they got CAUGHT). way to go!
March 11, 2009 3:21 PM
Funny. Not wildly funny, but funny.
March 11, 2009 3:41 PM
So how many ounces are necessary to blow up a plane? Let's say 30, as that is WAY over the 3 oz. limit.
If that's the case, could one not just split that into ten three ounce bottles? You can fit ten bottles into the baggy, and if not, just have buddies carry the rest through in their own carry-on.
Once through, buy yourself a Pepsi and pour it out. Then you've got your big bottle to combine the liquids into.
I'm still not sure how these restrictions help.
If you truly believe that the liquid could be dangerous and explosive, why do you simply *toss* it into a trash can without identifying what it actually is?
I'm interested in an answer to that question. The TSA reps at the airport can't seem to give me one.
March 11, 2009 4:37 PM
Look at the person in the scanner, hands raised like some criminal.
I will always refuse those units.
___________________________________
Good for you, refuse them. Doesn't make a difference if you go in it or not.
March 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Now that I've had time to think about it, I now think that Bob has (unintentionally of course) done something beneficial with this blog post. It moves us ever so slightly closer to the day when an impartial entity will pierce the veil of secrecy and objectively evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of TSA policies and procedures.
MMW screening is undeniably costly, in terms of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on each machine as well as the lost privacy and dignity that can't be measured in dollars. What are we getting for that high cost?
In theory, the strip search greatly improves the TSA's ability to detect items that threaten aviation. In practice, it will almost certainly generate a very large number of false positives-- and very few (if any) detections of items that threaten aviation. It will detect items that are "Prohibited" because they violate TSA rules (the published ones as well as the secret local "interpretations") or are illegal items (e.g., drugs, cash, or fake military jackets). But these are false positives and not "successes" because the detected items do not threaten aviation security.
Perhaps if Bob had posted about an MMW detecting bomb materials or a knife, we might reconsider our opinion: "Thank God for the TSA. And you know, I really don't mind the innocuous, family-friendly MMW scan after all." But reporting false positives as "successes" only tells us that the TSA is desperate to justify their costly intrusions and absurd restrictions in the name of preventing a dubious and overblown threat. If you don't have an actual success to crow about, it may be better to say nothing than to undermine your cause by pretending that a failure-- which after all is what a false positives is-- is a "success" that somehow keeps aviation secure.
The post also brings up another important point. The passenger in question smuggled their Prohibited lotion because it was valuable and they didn't want to lose it. The facile official answer is that they should have put it in a checked bag. But as we're all aware, the only things that should ever be placed in checked bags are those we're willing to lose. Checked bags are subject to delay, loss, damage, or theft-- and TSA baggage screening only increases these risks. This passenger (perhaps sensibly) concluded that the risk of losing a valued item to inconsistent, inept TSA screening would be less than the risk of losing it to an airline's (and the TSA's) dodgy handling of checked baggage.
The strip search machine changes that equation, since it increases the likelihood of losing a valuable item to the TSA. So what are we to do now? If the lotion, perfume, or whatever oversized container of liquid is truly valuable and a passenger doesn't want to do without it, they'll have to spend the time and money to FedEx it both ways. Or else buy it at the destination and discard it before leaving for the airport. If it's a prescription medication, that may involve a trip to a local doctor and filling a prescription, expenses that probably won't be covered by insurance. The passenger has incurred this extra expense, but how has that bought any security or protection of aviation?
Under the Bush administration, the TSA has had a free rein. Because they're fighting the Global War On Terror, they're exempt from any oversight or cost-benefit analysis. They can operate in secrecy and basically do anything they want, including repeatedly lying, because they're Protecting The Homeland. And any questions about their efficacy or cost-effectiveness can be dismissed with an exhortation to "Remember 9/11."
But the Bush administration is history, and the Obama administration does not appear to share their predecessor's belief that questioning or criticism is unpatriotic. So for the good of the country, it's time for the TSA to consider the wide-ranging effects of its policies and procedures, and to be accountable for their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Let's demand value for our money rather than mere Bandini.
March 11, 2009 4:54 PM
What is interesting is that you triumphly claim as a success what is a failure of the system. This is a false positive, i.e. an error.
___________________________________
What are you talking about? This is an error? I don't see an error. I understand that it was not a gun or a knife or an IED, but she was trying to hide something and not following the rules. There for she loses. :)
March 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Of course, many of you are saying, “Thank the heavens for the TSA. Without them, a harmless bottle of lotion would have made it onto an airplane. “
Good thing you said it for me, because that's exactly what I think. When you actually catch someone who is a real threat to a flight let us know. Did they get arrested for concealing a 4oz bottle, after all they violated the TSA's secret rules.
How many more puppy posts are we going to have to endure?
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
___________________________________
No one asked you to come read this blog. If you don't like the "puppy posts" then don't visit.
March 11, 2009 4:57 PM
http://tinyurl.com/bqklme
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The government's terrorist watch list has hit 1 million entries, up 32% since 2007.
Federal data show the rise comes despite the removal of 33,000 entries last year by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center in an effort to purge the list of outdated information and remove people cleared in investigations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bob to the white phone, calling Bob to the white phone.
So Bob, a while back an article was posted here saying the watch list was much smaller than 1 millions names.
"Myth Buster: TSA's Watch List is More Than One Million People Strong"
You want to dispute this article also?
March 11, 2009 5:17 PM
So you're not going to allow a bottle of lotion on a plane that's 1 oz over? I know the TSA is famous for their paranoid officers, but come on! Please explain!
March 11, 2009 7:22 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with most of the posters in this forum I'm finding it difficult to continue defending the liquids restriction/ban. Its getting old really fast, and with the technology that is being deployed on checkpoint now days, I think its time to face reality....the liquids thing has outlived its welcome and we should be concentrating our efforts on finding other IED components. Our experts tell us that certain components will be easier to smuggle on than others, and those are the components we should be looking for. I'm sorry Bob, this is where I part ways with my employer. And of course I have to remain anonymous in this posting for fear of retribution from local management. Although I have posted in this forum under my real name in the past.
March 11, 2009 8:13 PM
S. Muggler said...
I often "smuggle" bottles of liquids in my pants pocket through security. Why? Because I don't like to check luggage. I can pack everything I need for a week's trip in a backpack (that still fits under the seat in front of me). This way the airlines can't lose my luggage and I don't have the huge time penalty imposed on me that waiting for my luggage brings.
The problem is that my Freedom Baggie is full after I've stuffed my toothpaste, contact lens stuff, deodorant, medications, etc. in it. I like to carry hand sanitizer too, and sometimes that just won't fit in the Freedom Baggie. So I stick it in my pockets.
After all, there's no penalty for trying and failing to sneak innocuous liquids through, so why not. The worst thing that happens is I say, "Oops, forgot that was there, I was concentrating on getting all the metal out I just forgot. Sorry."
It wouldn't surprise me if that's why the lady was trying to smuggle it through.
March 11, 2009 10:40 AM
***********************************
Intentional Snark: We know who you are, we have your photo at all US airport checkpoints, and we will strip search you the next time you travel. LOL
March 11, 2009 8:23 PM
This is the only big find you have to report. So in other words...there really isn't a threat.
March 11, 2009 8:39 PM
Phil said...
Please publish a list of all the rules and regulations that you will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint).
Here Phil.. these are the regulations:
http://tinyurl.com/tsacfr
March 11, 2009 9:18 PM
Honestly, I agree the liquids restriction needs to be lifted; however, remember, that liquids are still a very real threat. Therefore, it is important for us to continue our course until better liquid explosives detection is available. Currently, the equipment can easily slow a single passenger down by several minutes and multiplying that by all travelers will slow down wait lines threefold. There was a similar incident at my airport but there were two 8 ounce bottles involved.
Nonetheless, this is besides the point, the fact is there are people knowingly and intentionally crouching prohibited items. I have personally caught knives with this equipment and have knowledge of drugs being found as well; therefore, so called, "legitimate threats" have been caught with Whole Body Imaging.
March 12, 2009 4:54 AM
Phil said...
TSA's un-American actions endanger our freedom. Your agency is a menace.
Based on the case you brought up, “Court of Justice Case C-345/06”, you want a published prohibited items list?
Okay. Happy to help.
Notice: Interpretive Rule: Prohibited Items (68 FR 7444; 02/14/2003)
Notice: Interpretive Rule; Correction: Prohibited Items (68 FR 9902; 03/03/2003)
Notice: Interpretive Rule; Adds All Lighters: Prohibited Items (70 FR 9877; 03/01/2005)
Notice: Interpretive Rule: Prohibited Items; Allowing Scissors for Ostomates (1652-ZA05) (70 FR 51679; 08/31/2005)
Notice: Interpretive Rule: Prohibited Items; Allowing Small Scissors and Small Tools (1652-ZA09) (70 FR 72930; 12/08/2005)
Notice of Enforcement Policy: Prohibited Items; New Enforcement Policy Regarding Lighters (1652-ZA13) (72 FR 40262; 07/24/2007)
Also reference the latest Prohibited Items List List on TSA's website.
The EU ruling would not effect TSA for two reasons. TSA is in compliance and TSA does not fall under Article 254(2) EC(which only applies to European Union).
Just a note. From “ Interpretive Rule: Prohibited Items (68 FR 7444; 02/14/2003)”, “A screener has discretion to prohibit an individual from carrying an item into a sterile area or onboard an aircraft if the screener determines that the item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, regardless of whether the item is on the prohibited items list or the permitted items list.”
All right. Break out the mission accomplished banner. Phil has all he wants now.... or maybe not?!?!
I'm siding on the NOT. LOL
Hope this helps someone. (H2H shrugs shoulders)
-H2H
March 12, 2009 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...
What is interesting is that you triumphly claim as a success what is a failure of the system. This is a false positive, i.e. an error.
Not a false positive and not a error. The millimeter wave and dedicated Transportation Security Officers found a prohibited item.
-H2H
March 12, 2009 10:24 AM
GSOLTSO, you must really lose a lot of sleep thinking about ways to rationalize and justify your place in life.
" understand that a lot of people will say "It was a 4oz bottle of lotion!", to which I reply "It is a prohibited item. No discussion, no arguing, no problem, the item is a prohib, therefore it is not allowed. You can argue all you want, but the machine did its job,"
Unfortunately, the more important issue is that the job which the machine did was completely, utterly worthless with regard to ensuring the safety of air travelers. The best you have to offer for the "success" of a $170,000 piece of equipment is that, so far, it has managed to pick out a bottle of lotion that was .6 ounces too big and was a threat to absolutely no one.
It does not matter that you found it. It's not impressive, it's not evidence that the system works, and it doesn't justify your disgusting, bloated bureaucracy's proclivity for trampling all over civil liberties.
Do you honestly think you catch everything? Because you only have to miss something one time for the entire agency to be a complete failure. No one is going to go stand in the x-ray machine with their martyr vest on, so you can go ahead and safely assume that it will never stop an actual threat.
March 12, 2009 2:44 PM
Another Anonymous poster said:
“Why couldn't you use the sniffer you use on medical liquids, verify it was harmless lotion, and let it on the plane?”
The technology you write about is not currently available at all airports. The airport in question may not have had the “sniffer”.
Another Anonymous poster continues with:
“The thing that's hard to understand and simultaneously extremely infuriating is that you seem to know that the bottle contained harmless lotion, but you still kept it off the plane.”
The bottle was denied entry to the sterile area not because of what it contained but because of its size. Bring a 3.4 ounce bottle of lotion and it won’t get stopped.
Another Anonymous poster still continues with:
“A pointless rule enforced blindly. Nobody wins and civil rights loses. Business as usual at the TSA.”
Bottles don’t enjoy the protections of civil rights. Humans do. The human in question here was given the choice of abandoning the property or finding something outside of the sterile area to do with it. Either works for the TSA, we have no vested interest in the bottle as long as it does not get through the checkpoint.
And the Anonymous poster finishes with:
“Bob, it's clear that you know your post is going to sound ridiculous to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Why not address our very legitimate concerns directly instead of proclaiming this a triumph and (metaphorically) skipping away giggling?”
It was a triumph, for the screeners, the airport, and the nation as a whole.
Its simple people, it’s the rules. We all have rules that we must live by, or we pay the consequences for ignoring them. Flying is no different.
March 12, 2009 2:49 PM
Eric, I hope to NEVER find a terrorist. I would much rather that they determine that their chances at my airport are zero and go home. That would be the best outcome for everyone.
March 12, 2009 2:52 PM
Anonymous said: "Take your contact stuff out of the freedom baggie. They are considered medical and are exempt from bagging, thus creating more room for all your other liquids."
See, I've tried that, but it tends to "break" the TSO by sending them into an infinite loop.
The problem is, contact lens stuff is in 3-oz bottles. So if the stuff is out of the bag, they go, "All your liquids have to be in the bag." And then you go, "But it's medication, it doesn't have to be in the bag." And they go, "That's only if it's greater than 4 ounces." And you go, "Well I guess I could put the contact lens stuff in the bag, and leave the shampoo out." And they go, "Can't. Gotta be in da bag." And so you see the problem. The poor guy gets stuck in an infinite loop, and meanwhile Osama and Hitler and Satan and Bad Bad Leroy Brown are all sneaking through the security portal while the poor TSO's head starts emitting smoke. It was funny when Captain Kirk would use that technique to stop evil computers, but in the airport it's a threat to national security.
I'll stick with smuggling. Like I said, there's no penalty for trying and failing to sneak lotion through, so it's all good.
March 12, 2009 3:45 PM
GSOLTSO wrote...
You know, I just noticed something, Eric is like the 50th name that is followed by "one of the 5-6.... You guys need math lessons or something!
Actually that "one of five or six" dates back to the beginning of the EoS blog when one of the TSA apologists complained that it was always the same five or six people posting over and over. Personally I have included that as part of my signature here to show just how ridiculous that claim was - and still is.
The person(s) needing math lessons are the ones suggesting there are only five or six frequent posters.
The attachment to the signature is purposely ridiculous in order to ridicule the original statement that there were only a few of "us."
Thank you for noticing.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
March 12, 2009 3:52 PM
GSLTSO, @ "...This is not a false positive, a false positive is when the machine "tells" you that the person has a machine gun in their pocket, when they actually have a LAW rocket (this is an exaggeration, but you get the basic idea). This is a case of the machine registering something that COULD have been a threat based the fact that an UNKNOWN object was there. Once again, the machine reacted in the correct manner,..."
If the alternate metal detector plus pat down process didn't detect the lotion stuffed in her bra, would you consider that "missed detection" an example of the system working perfectly?
This story is a false alarm in that TSA is touting its new terrorist-catching technology and showing us a non-terrorist. Certainly you can inflate your reported effectiveness statistics by classifying more and more comonly carried non-weapons as prohibited items. The you can crow about how many trashcans full of contraband your employees confiscated each day. The more you criminalize carrying everyday items, the more criminals you can catch.
On a public relations, communications, and "you play a part"-teamwork note, did you folks train this PAX on how she could carry her lotion as an over the counter medicine or item to augment the body for cosmetic reasons? Or did you just fine her for artful concealment and write her up on the blog "
Pour encourager les autres"?
March 12, 2009 4:02 PM
"This is a case of the machine working, the staff working and the passenger making an attempt to conceal an item that is prohibited (for which they got CAUGHT). way to go!"
YAY! A completely harmless object that can do no harm to anyone and should be allowed on planes without restriction was caught! YAY!
Wake me up when you yahoos catch an actual terrorist. Oh, wait: You never, ever have.
March 12, 2009 4:04 PM
GSOLTSO said:
"You know, I just noticed something, Eric is like the 50th name that is followed by "one of the 5-6.... You guys need math lessons or something!"
No, there are not 50 names followed by the referece of "1 of ......" phrase. There might be 50 different posts with that tag line, but not 50 different people. So, you are the one who needs the lessons.
March 12, 2009 4:40 PM
Happy to Help, please e-mail me at tsablog@dhs.gov
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 12, 2009 5:51 PM
The TSA is doing its best to test the frog-boiling analogy.
March 12, 2009 6:17 PM
Bless you, Anonymous:
"I'm afraid I have to agree with most of the posters in this forum I'm finding it difficult to continue defending the liquids restriction/ban."
Know that you are one of many, many TSOs who feel this way. Thank you for speaking out.
March 12, 2009 7:54 PM
rE: THE JUST RELEASED TOP TEN Q&A WITH LEE, GAIL AND ANOTHER GUY, THE QUESTION RE: LACK OF TRAINING FOR LTSOs WAS BROUGHT UP AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT A CLASS WAS COMING SOON FOR LTSO TRAINING. WELL THERE WE GO AGAIN. MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS TO ASK HOW AND WHY IS ANYONE PROMOTED INTO A LTSO POSITION WITHOUT HAVING THE SKILLS TO PERFORM THE JOB. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR TRAINING WILL NOT PROVIDE THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION. EITHER YOU HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T GOING INTO IT.WOULD YOU LET SOMEONE WITH NO SKILLS HANDLE YOUR JOB GAIL?
March 12, 2009 8:42 PM
TSORon said in part.....
"The bottle was denied entry to the sterile area not because of what it contained but because of its size. "
So why is an empty bottle larger than 3.4 ounces allowed?
Is it the contents or the size?
You seem confused on this point TSORon!
March 12, 2009 8:49 PM
RB wrote...
TSORon said in part.....
"The bottle was denied entry to the sterile area not because of what it contained but because of its size."
So why is an empty bottle larger than 3.4 ounces allowed?
Is it the contents or the size?
________________
That is, indeed, a very good question, RB.
We have seen many times on the TSA site and in person, watching empty "sport bottles" going through the federal chokepoint, that empty containers seem to pass without difficulty.
We also see "rules" that only allow 3.4 liquid ounces/100ml of "liquid, gel, or aerosol to pass that same point.
My question, quite seriously, is simply: If a 4 ounce container obviously half full or less is presented, in a Kippie Bag, why is it rejected?
If I can carry an empty 4 ounce container or 3.4 ounces of random liquid, gel or aerosol, why on earth can I not carry 2 ounces of liquid in a 4 ounce bottle?
Heck, I can carry an empty 20 ounce bottle through, why not a half filled 4 ounce?
A logical, rational, reasonable answer would be appreciated, Blogger Bob.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
P.S. Glad to see you tweeting away on Twitter, Bob.
March 12, 2009 11:40 PM
In response to the most recent of my repeated requests for TSA to publish the rules it requires people to follow at the checkpoints it has erected in our airports if they wish to avoid having their freedom of movement restricted or property seized, Patrick, who claims to search people and their belongings for TSA at BOS TSO, wrote:
"Here Phil.. [these] are the regulations"
In response to the same request, HappyToHelp cited six PDFs from access.gpo.gov (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) and TSA's "Prohibited Items for Travelers" page.
None of the eight aforementioned documents contains any of the words, footwear, quart, resealable, cash, or identification. In those documents, the word shoes is use only in the sentence, "Gel shoe inserts are not permitted, but shoes constructed with gel heels are allowed and must be removed and screened," and the word identify is used only in reference to identifying medication, docket numbers, explosives, scissors, lighters, and "items TSOs are required to identify."
So, Patrick and H2H, it is clear that these multiple documents do not constitute a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint).
Against my better judgement, I've played along with your game, and you lost. Would you care to admit that TSA subjects people to rules that they are not allowed to read?
TSA, it is wholly un-American to require people to abide by secret rules. Please, just tell us what you require of us so we can follow your rules and go about our business without interference from our government when we're not doing anything wrong.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
March 13, 2009 1:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Look at the person in the scanner, hands raised like some criminal.
I will always refuse those units.
March 11, 2009 10:18 AM
***********************************
Yes, only criminals raise their hands over their head like that. ????????????
March 13, 2009 10:28 AM
RB asked:
"Is it the contents or the size?
You seem confused on this point TSORon!"
Not confused a bit. It seems what I said was pretty clear, liquid containers larger than 3.4 ounces are not allowed through the checkpoint. There ARE exceptions, but I'll let you do some research on your own to figure them out.
March 13, 2009 10:50 AM
Hey Ron, just wanted to deconstruct your argument. Fasten your seatbelt.
You said: The technology you write about is not currently available at all airports. The airport in question may not have had the “sniffer”.
I say: TSA policy is to allow medical liquids on board, even if they are over the liquid volume limit. There's nothing on the TSA website about "where the technology is available". It has to be assumed that larger-than-30z amounts can be safely screened at all airports. Besides, the sniffer tech not being available is a separate issue unrelated to what I was saying. My point was if you can safely screen medical liquids, you can safely screen any liquids, so why isn't that done? (P.S If they have a MMW machine, you can bet they have a sniffer, try again Ron)
You say: The bottle was denied entry to the sterile area not because of what it contained but because of its size. Bring a 3.4 ounce bottle of lotion and it won’t get stopped.
I say: You stop bottles of liquid because of what they potentially contain. If a liquid (in any size bottle) can be positively identified as safe, there is no reason not to allow it on a plane. Your argument is that TSA is trying to stop larger-than 3.4oz bottles from reaching the sterile area? If that's so you guys aren't doing a very good job, plenty of larger-than-that bottles are available at concessions on the other side of security. (Try again.)
You say: Bottles don’t enjoy the protections of civil rights. Humans do. The human in question here was given the choice of abandoning the property or finding something outside of the sterile area to do with it. Either works for the TSA, we have no vested interest in the bottle as long as it does not get through the checkpoint.
I say: When I refer to civil rights, I refer to the right of citizens of a nation to travel without being needlessly harassed or detained. My position is that liquids in any amount can be safely screened. The technology is there. The only reasons TSA might have not to rescind the liquids ban now are a lack of funds (seriously, where is all that money going?) or a vested interest in keeping travelers docile and unquestioning in the face of authority. I just want to bring my shaving cream, shampoo, and bottle of coke in my carry-on. The fact that TSA can't handle that is worrisome to me, especially when the technology is available. I have yet to hear an explanation for this that I'm happy with. If you can screen some liquids, you can screen all liquids.
You say: It was a triumph, for the screeners, the airport, and the nation as a whole. Its simple people, it’s the rules. We all have rules that we must live by, or we pay the consequences for ignoring them. Flying is no different.
I say: You're a fool. No one was made any safer by keeping a bottle of lotion off a plane. The technology existed to screen the lotion, Bob even identifies the liquid as lotion in his post. It flies in the face of common sense to keep something harmless off a plane. I find it frightening that someone being asked to make decisions involving my personal safety doesn't understand that the rules are there to protect us and make sure things get done in a way that is safe, sane, and fair to everyone. When the rules don't work or don't make sense, you change the rules, you don't just keep blindly obeying them. Ronnie, seriously, you need to study some world history and get back to me. Maybe try some zen meditation. Blindly obeying isn't going to get us anywhere good as individuals or as a society.
March 13, 2009 11:07 AM
@TSORon: Its simple people, it's the rules. We all have rules that we must live by, or we pay the consequences for ignoring them. Flying is no different.
Strictly speaking, this is absolutely true. However, this country is nominally a democracy in which people have the right to free speech. And that particularly includes the right-- which some would call a patriotic obligation-- to question, challenge, and otherwise speak out against rules that appear arbitrary, nonsensical, or even stupid. And it seems that a lot of people are doing exactly that, and in increasing numbers that even include some TSA employees.
The TSA, in the typical fashion of the Bush administration that created it, continues to defend both the rules and the way they're implemented at checkpoints as necessary, appropriate, and effective measures against a terrifying threat. (And their defense is increasingly inept and unbelievable, as exemplified by this blog post.) But since the specifics are either classified or SSI, they continue to insist that we accept it all on faith. So we had best stop complaining, since ranting at each other here and elsewhere will have no effect. And it doesn't matter anyway. We have to live by the rules-- whatever those rules happen to be at that checkpoint, for that TSO, at that moment-- and get strip-searched if we want to fly today. We can avoid flying, but that's not always a feasible solution.
But that doesn't stop me from asking whether these costly "pain points" and the continuing erosion of our privacy and dignity actually give us effective security. If the answer truly is "yes," we might indeed be willing (if not necessarily eager) to pay that price. But of course, keeping the information necessary to answer that question classified is essential to its effectiveness. Experience can only suggest that pervasive secrecy is a convenient cover for ineptitude, ineffectiveness, and waste, so I have to assume that the answer is "no" until the TSA can convince me otherwise. So while I obviously have no choice but to play by whatever rules the TSO decides to impose on me at the checkpoint when I fly, when I'm not at an airport I will continue to question the rules that I consider stupid, and insist on long-delayed accountability.
If we as a nation ever do decide to stop complaining and just unquestioningly "play by the rules" that our Leaders dictate, Al-Qaeda will have won a significant victory.
March 13, 2009 12:13 PM
“Why couldn't you use the sniffer you use on medical liquids, verify it was harmless lotion, and let it on the plane?”
The technology you write about is not currently available at all airports. The airport in question may not have had the “sniffer”.
___________________________________
Why would we use the sniffer if the person was not following the rules. Just like when a child is bad, you punish them, otherwise they do not learn. Well an adult is trying to hide something that they know they can't have. I don't care if we have the sniffer or not. The fact that the rules were not followed is enough of a reason to throw away the product.
March 13, 2009 1:24 PM
TSA, it is wholly un-American to require people to abide by secret rules. Please, just tell us what you require of us so we can follow your rules and go about our business without interference from our government when we're not doing anything wrong.
--
Phil
___________________________________
Oh my gosh Phil, you are like a broken record.
Here I will do this for you. Although it is not hard. I think you could do it yourself.
Here is the link on TSA.gov.
It is the link for travelers.
It states what you need to know before you go.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/index.shtm
There you go, go ahead and copy and paste that bad boy and all of your wildest dreams will come true.
Your welcome!!!!
March 13, 2009 1:42 PM
I have to say that when I first started reading comments on this blog, I thought posters were being unfairly sarcastic and unfair to TSA. Some commentators call out TSA employees who are just doing their jobs. TSA works hard to make sure that airplanes are safe for everyone to fly. This blog post clearly shows that TSA is well aware of how it is perceived by the general public.
The general public may not realize that TSA and DHS are working to develop machines and technology that can detect the difference between dangerous materials and the run of the mill lotions so that we can all go back to treating our dry skin on planes. Perhaps if we can ensure that travelers aren’t concealing dangerous items on their bodies and develop high tech methods of determining what’s in a bottle, (does it contain water or hydrogen peroxide?), we could all go back to carrying more than a quart of 3oz bottles onto planes. Until that time, if you don’t want to be “hassled” at the airport, be smart about it. The TSA doesn’t make up rules for fun. It is for everyone's safety, and when it is ok for us to carry liquids again, they will let us know.
On the other hand though, if the TSA passengers to take the regulations seriously, it needs to represent itself better than this. I agree with George’s earlier post. What is with the snarkiness? Making a crack about dry-skinned terrorists gives the impression that yes, TSA does make up rules and hassle people for fun. This post just further perpetuates the negative perception of airport security.
Furthermore, the entire post is written to mock this passenger. Not wanting to lose something expensive is a legitimate concern as demonstrated by George’s concerns for his wallet. Don’t belittle that. I would like to see Blogger Bob post information about how the machine works and what it means for travelers. For example, beyond spotting concealed non-metals, would it make the screening process faster? Are there any privacy concerns? This post not only reflects poorly on TSA’s attitude, it is also not very informative about this new system.
The stated purpose of this blog is “to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process,” but all this post does is foster a sarcastic squabbling on both sides.
March 13, 2009 2:21 PM
Christen *** This is a blog. Lighten up a little. Are you new to this blog? There is a little thing called a google searchbar at the top. If you type millimeter wave, you will learn that this this has been discussed. Bob and company have put out every kind of information you could imagine. If you want the typical government speak go to tsa's web page. ***
March 13, 2009 3:28 PM
"The TSA doesn’t make up rules for fun. It is for everyone's safety, and when it is ok for us to carry liquids again, they will let us know."
But the current liquid rules do nothing to make anyone safer, and much to threaten people's health and that of their children (such as the TSOs who broke TSA's rules when Mr. Gel-Pack attempted to fly, TSOs whom we can presume were not punished in any way for abusing an innocent family).
I don't trust TSA, because TSA has consistently shown that it is not trustworthy. It insists that shoes and lotion are a threat to aviation, when we and they know that shoes and lotion are harmless. TSA lies to us and abuses us, and must be stopped.
March 13, 2009 3:38 PM
@Christen: Not wanting to lose something expensive is a legitimate concern as demonstrated by George's concerns for his wallet.
I'm glad someone else considers my concerns legitimate. But I really would like someone from the TSA to address the concern about being separated from my wallet while undergoing a MMW search. I raised this question in response to an earlier blog post promoting MMW, but it was ignored. I raised it again here, and it seems that it will be ignored again.
This is a serious question about the MMW technology that truly worries me. The strip-search aspects and the loss of privacy and dignity are one thing, but the consequences of losing a wallet as a result of TSA screening are very real, truly frightening, and potentially very devastating.
If Bob or someone else is unable or unwilling to address this very real, very serious concern about MMW, perhaps they could direct me to someone who can address it. The TSA, in its myopic focus on burdening innocent travelers with dubious measures in reaction to past failures, seems completely blind to the wider-ranging consequences of its extremely narrow definition of "security." To me, any "security" scheme that encourages the loss, damage, or theft of passenger belongings-- and that now seems to be increasing the risk of devastating identity theft-- is not "security" at all. It is beyond inexcusable that the TSA makes citizens more afraid of their own government than of the terrorist threat from which it's supposedly protecting us.
March 13, 2009 4:56 PM
Bravo Phil. Thanks for reading the stuff about whuch TSA is Happy To Handwave. I'd guess you didn't see anything about the gel-pack exception either.
Anonymous @"(such as the TSOs who broke TSA's rules when Mr. Gel-Pack attempted to fly, TSOs whom we can presume were not punished in any way for abusing an innocent family)."
I don't have a huge beef with the TSO supervisor that wrongly confiscated my gel-pack, which led to the spoiling of 13 oz of my breast milk. I think he was poorly trained, but that is more TSA fault, rather than his. The many conflicting hidden rules, and lack of recourse to them at the point where they are enforced make it impossible to do the job right. Kippie glorified the inconsistencies of TSA as a clever Keystone-Kops sort of plan to keep the terrorists confused. But instead of hindering the mythical 1 in a billion terrorists, the inconsistency plan makes the system confusing to passengers, TSOs, and management. The whole of TSA is a mismanaged bunch of makework-bureacracy.
The three post-9/11 changes that helped real security are armored cockpit doors, situational awareness by the crew and passengers, and more uniforms wandering around.
The rest of TSA's "product"--the shoe-dance, id-check, and liquids ban-- is security theatre. It gives us the costly illusion that things are "safe", where even the actors know they can't keep us truly safe.
March 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Christen,
No, the TSA is making sure that the people are 'safe' for planes. If they were making sure planes were safe for people, then they would be having to supervise and sign behind any work that I ,or any other FAA certificated mechanic, performs on any aircraft and signs as airworthy for return to service.
(heavy sarcasm on) If liquids greater than 3.4oz are such a threat then why is OIL for aircraft engines, and HYDRAULIC fluids still delivered in 1-qt or larger containers? Shouldn't the manufacturers of aircraft supplies have been required to abide by this size rule also? (sarcasm off)
March 13, 2009 6:45 PM
TSORon said...
RB asked:
"Is it the contents or the size?
You seem confused on this point TSORon!"
Not confused a bit. It seems what I said was pretty clear, liquid containers larger than 3.4 ounces are not allowed through the checkpoint. There ARE exceptions, but I'll let you do some research on your own to figure them out.
March 13, 2009 10:50 AM
....................
What you said TSORon was exactly this:
"The bottle was denied entry to the sterile area not because of what it contained but because of its size."
It is clear to anyone that the concern is not with the contents but with the size of the bottle.
So apparently TSA is only concerned with size, not contents which might explain throwing all of the confiscated items in common trash.
See it really is just all for show, not safety!
March 13, 2009 8:52 PM
Although I do think national security is very important, we have to make air travel less hassle. I recently had to travel and between the extra early check in time, the security line, bag search etc., it was almost easy driving. I think the government and the airlines need to come up with a better answer, because what they are doing now does not work!! Just my 2 cents worth
Ralph DeLuca, Madison NJ
March 14, 2009 10:48 AM
For those that still contest the possibility of liquid explosive being carried on an airplane - look up "Bojinka plot". Ramsi Yousef (yes, he's the guy that tried to blow up the Trade Center the first time) and some of his pals found a way to transport some nitroglycerine onto an airplane in a contact lens solution bottle, hid some batteries in his shoes, assembled a device which detonated on a Phillipine airliner killing one man - all as part of a larger plot to blow up multiple airliners (back in 1995). Luckily, there was a snitch involved who ratted Yousef out to the US Embassy before he could refine his plan. Or maybe some was attempting to refine the plan - in August of 2006.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
March 14, 2009 12:24 PM
Although I'm sure someone else has posted this already, I'll do it again because it needs to be said over and over and over: Care to tell us again how ID equals security?
"Using phony documents and the identities of a dead man and a 5-year-old boy, a government investigator obtained U.S. passports in a test of post-9/11 security.
Despite efforts to boost passport security since the 2001 terror attacks, the investigator fooled passport and postal service employees four out of four times, according to a new report made public Friday.
The report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, details the ruses:
* One investigator used the Social Security number of a man who died in 1965, a fake New York birth certificate and a fake Florida driver's license. He received a passport four days later.
* A second attempt had the investigator using a 5-year-old boy's information but identifying himself as 53 years old on the passport application. He received that passport seven days later.
* In another test, an investigator used fake documents to get a genuine Washington, D.C., identification card, which he then used to apply for a passport. He received it the same day.
* A fourth investigator used a fake New York birth certificate and a fake West Virginia driver's license and got the passport eight days later.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29685399/
March 14, 2009 5:11 PM
The commenter who made the "body packing" remark hit on something. What happens when a terrorist body packs aboard explosive and detonates it? Have a tso ram a finger down our throats using the same glove they used on 100 other people to make us throwup? Are they going to make use drink Ipecac syrup at the checkpoint to throwup whatever *MIGHT* be in our stomaches? Or perhaps force us to undergo intestinal surgery on the offchance the stuff has passed into the intestines? Or will they finally deploy the sniffer that can detect the stuff inside the body or out and remove the already pointless liquids ban?
March 14, 2009 9:51 PM
Phil said...
Against my better judgment, I've played along with your game, and you lost. Would you care to admit that TSA subjects people to rules that they are not allowed to read?
My response was only to your comment about the "Tennis player's victory over secret list of banned aircraft hand luggage," published March 10, 2009. The secret list/rule/regulation that is referred to in “Court of Justice Case C-345/06” is the prohibited items list. TSA has published its prohibited items list and even defines the term “weapon” as used in the law(ATSA).
I'm not to sure why you were looking for footwear, quart, resealable, cash, and identification on the prohibited items list.
If your intent Phil was to complain about a secret prohibited items list, I would understand why you brought up the case in the first place. There are no secret prohibited items Phil. If you are fishing for anti-secret rules quotes, you do not need to find them across the ocean. Frankly, you don't need them to make your point. Your point is good as it stands. We just happen to disagree :) I strongly believe that the Standard Operating Procedures(SOP) should remain as Sensitive Security Information(SSI).
-H2H
March 15, 2009 10:32 AM
Another Anonymous poster said:
”I don't trust TSA, because TSA has consistently shown that it is not trustworthy. It insists that shoes and lotion are a threat to aviation, when we and they know that shoes and lotion are harmless. TSA lies to us and abuses us, and must be stopped.”
I sympathize with your lack of trust for the TSA and its officers, trust is something that must be earned. And I’m not going to tell you that every member of the TSA is Mother Teresa, worthy of unconditional trust because of their uniform or position. What I can tell you is that some of your assumptions are inaccurate.
Shoes “can” be a threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist)
Liquids also can be a threat.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_bojinka
Both of the operations listed above really happened, and can happen again. We don’t do things without reason, and if you take some time to think about what we do one can usually figure out why.
March 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Anon said "GSOLTSO, you must really lose a lot of sleep thinking about ways to rationalize and justify your place in life."
Wow, talk about losing sleep! I am all broken up because you named me and called me out... hehe, hehe, Ok, sorry I thought I could do that with a straight face but obviously not! I don't have to lose sleep, I have the rules and regulations on my side. I understand that several things we do are unpopular! Being a frontline "joe", I merely follow the rules/regs given to me. Now, you sound really petulant arguing over .6 oz, really it is the same as saying "I only stole $400 from the convienience store, what is the big deal?", the fact remains that you stole something, period. Now, you can lose sleep and try to think up ways to justify breaking the posted rules, but it isn't going to faze me in the least.
March 15, 2009 12:24 PM
Understand that although I disagree with the liquid restrictions/ban, as a TSA employee I must enforce it until such time as my employer sees fit to lift it. I hope this will be soon, but to be totally 100 percent honest with you, I don't see it happening anytime soon. For some reason, TSA admin still feels there is a legitimate threat from liquid explosives, I have no evidence otherwise. So please, when you come to the checkpoint with liquids over 3.4 ounces, and I tell you that it is not permitted through the checkpoint, please don't shoot the messenger.
March 15, 2009 2:12 PM
It is best to be safe even if it wasnt an explosive. It shows that they are on top of things like this. So when a real threat happens the terrorist will be prosecuted.
March 15, 2009 4:42 PM
TSO Colson:
I've heard about this machine at large airports. The images that are sent back to the machine is not of your naked bady but i think it's of a grayscale image with the outline of your body.
think 3-d grayscale animation detailing the curves, and the outlines of your fabric.
It's not like the person behind the desk can see your whole private area and parts! lol. That would open TSA to a multitude of lawsuits. Y'all remember total recall and the xray screen? That's what I think TSA is aiming for. If you got nothing to hide you'll be fine.
March 15, 2009 8:04 PM
TSA should be done away with.
There increasingly evasive security measures are an invasion on privacy and also bad for business.
Airlines should be given the responsibility for their own security and they should also be held accountable for their own security failures. Governments cannot respond to consumer issues such as reliablibility, efficiency, and security as well as a business can.
These new machines are only capable of finding liquids not dangerous liquids. I am aware that machines capable of this are in the future but how far off? How long are we going to let a clumsy government program damage the private industry, that is the airlines?
March 15, 2009 8:37 PM
The fact that TSA was able to find this easily concealable item goes to show the leaps and bounds we have taken as a country to secure our travel infrastructure and guarantee the safety of America’s citizens. I pray that the days of sneaking illegal and potentially dangerous items past airport security are long gone (although some not to distant tests have shown that pocket knives and other small knives have still made their way past security). I also commend the TSA for utilizing this non-intrusive machine which represents a strong step forward in guaranteeing security and an individual’s privacy.
I hope TSA always remembers their ultimate goal of protecting the American way of life which is centered in liberty and the preservation of an individual’s privacy. I am reminded of a quote by Benjamin Franklin which says, “Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” I look forward to future TSA improvements.
March 16, 2009 9:43 AM
Sandra said...
Although I'm sure someone else has posted this already, I'll do it again because it needs to be said over and over and over: Care to tell us again how ID equals security?
The MSNBC article and GAO report more or less detail failures of the Department of State not TSA. At least that's what I can discern from what you've posted here because I have not read the actual article or report... which I'll do later when I get home.
If said investigator had presented one of fake licenses, I most likely would have been to spot the fact it's forged. If one of the valid passports had been presented to me, yes, I would have let it go but that would not be a failure on my part, it would be a failure on the part of the State Department not TSA.
Now if the investigator had said that he did not have a license or ID and that he lost and we went into a secondary ID check to involves calling a TSA operations center, a database search would have revealed that that Social Security number belonged to a man dead for over 40 years and that fake NY birth certificate would not have shown up as it's phony.
But again, I will reiterate, that was a failure of the State Department, not TSA. The State Department should investigate the documents it's being presented much better.
SJF440 said...
How long are we going to let a clumsy government program damage the private industry, that is the airlines?
Ummm.... ever hear of the FAA? It's been around since 1958. And the airline industry itself has been regulated by the Air Commerce Act of 1926.
Mind you, the FAA has shown itself been clumsy at times.
March 16, 2009 10:30 AM
Why does TSA refuse to disclose the policy for small children and its virtual strip-search technology?
March 16, 2009 10:37 AM
" matt said...
It is best to be safe even if it wasnt an explosive. It shows that they are on top of things like this. So when a real threat happens the terrorist will be prosecuted."
Its more likely that while TSA is busy collecting 4oz lotion bottles, the terrorist will be busy elsewhere.
March 16, 2009 11:08 AM
There increasingly evasive security measures are an invasion on privacy and also bad for business.
___________________________________
Bad for business, ha, business. What business. TSA is not running a business. They are not selling the public airline tickets. There for it is not bad for business. There is no business, just the government.
March 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home