Lost & Found in LA: $30,000.00 Watch Returned to Passenger
One has to figure, over the course of any trip, be it business or pleasure, there are dozens of opportunities to lose things.Hotels, shuttles, restaurants, buses, rental cars, airplanes, taxis, restrooms, and yes, even security checkpoints present "opportunities" to lose that special piece of jewelry, the cell phone, laptop, bluetooth, belt, hat, car keys, DVD player, passports and the list goes on and on, up to and including dentures (which we have actually found, and no, weren't required to be removed).
Solving the mystery of who belongs to what is incredibly labor-intensive but TSA employees across the country work to get these items back to their rightful owner; all in addition to their “regular” jobs of protecting the traveling public. It should be clear, TSA doesn't manage lost and found in all airports, some police departments, air carriers or airports can handle lost and found responsibilities too.
I know of cases where our people have found a cell phone owner simply by calling a number in the address book. We have had success using Web sites like MySpace to find the owner of a lost driver's license. We've even had cases of officers calling that grocery store from the club card on key chains to find an owner. Whatever the case, we have had some success.
Other times, it's simply impossible to find the owner. There are no identifying characteristics from an owner on a belt, a hat or a scarf. Once in a while though, we'll have a name and number on a walker, cane, stroller or car seat. No lie, people lose this stuff.
So, when an items falls into our lap at an airport like L.A., we'll log it, the time it was found, the terminal, the airline servicing that terminal and the lane; all clues that help us identify the rightful owner, should that person call to claim it.
I spoke with Hector Moreno, an officer at LAX who provided this brief tour of our lost and found operation.
While I was with Hector, a passenger had come into the office to claim an item, here is his story.
Additionally, I received an email last week from a passenger who wanted to applaud the work officers had done to reunite him with his watch.
Jeffrey Neuman flew through LAX around Mother's Day and inadvertently left his collector Cartier watch in one of our bins. Knowing the value of his watch, he fully expected to never see it again. Boy, was he in for a surprise.
So given the huge volume of items that are left at the checkpoints at LAX and I am sure around the country, the next time one of your items goes missing, give the local lost and found a call, it's quite possible we have it.
However, don't wait too long, as we only hold onto items valued at less than 500 bucks for 30 days, at which point they are donated to the General Services Administration, the government's entity responsible for property. More expensive items are held at our national HQ warehouse for up to two years.
One last thought, if possible, put your name on your items or tape a business card to an item, especially laptops, it sure makes the process of reuniting these items with passengers much easier.
Nico
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
3:09 PM
Subscribe in a reader
158 Comments:
how does this post serve the purpose of the blog as stated on its homepage?
"This blog is sponsored by the Transportation Security Administration to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process."
It would seem to be just showing how the TSA does the right thing which is not something deserving of praise. It also seems to have a goal of pushing the ID topic off the front page withotu answering any of the commenters (even Dean). So it in fact would exactly contravene the sated goal.
July 11, 2008 4:31 PM
Perhaps if your checkpoints didn't waste everyone's time with the scientifically indefensible 3.4-1-1 nonsense and mandatory show screenings, citizens would not lost so many items in the process.
July 11, 2008 4:34 PM
What makes someone who declines to show ID, but is willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations, too dangerous to fly?
What is the difference between someone who declines to show ID and someone who lost their ID, if both are willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations?
If you cannot answer these questions, how can you claim with a straight face that you are not, contrary to your attempts to say otherwise, targeting anyone who declines to show ID?
Why are 10 people a day who decline to show ID such a threat that they cannot be permitted to fly?
How much money does the new regime of invasive interrogations cost the taxpayer, compared to the previous policy of giving those who cannot or decline to show ID a pat-down and bag-check?
Why have you repeatedly refused to answer these questions? What are you afraid of?
July 11, 2008 4:36 PM
Nice, but that hardly makes up for the 10,000 laptops stolen and lost each WEEK at US airports.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2008/07/survey-10000-la.html
I asked previously if you planned to do ANYTHING to help travelers prevent theft, but as usual you opted to ignore those of us who post comments that don't fit your agenda.
Also, for every item you manage to return to travelers, you seem to take thousands more, such as this airline pilot's butter knife:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/07/11/askthepilot283/
Care to comment on this one?
That's neat. I can find double the amount of bad press as you post good press. And this was with, uh, twenty seconds of Googling?
You guys are a joke. Keep up the, uh, work.
July 11, 2008 4:39 PM
When will you answer the multitude of open questions about the airport identification policies?
July 11, 2008 4:59 PM
Brandon said... Nice, but that hardly makes up for the 10,000 laptops stolen and lost each WEEK at US airports.
Did you actually beleive that story? It amazes me what people choose to believe. Do the math. 10,000 a week??? Come on... That would be half a million computers a year. I think this would have made the news a LONG time ago if it were true.
Have you been hanging out with the stun bracelet folks? :)
I suggest you check out this story. It makes much more sense than the one you're getting your info from. Clicky
Bob
EoS Blog Team
July 11, 2008 5:19 PM
Bob, speaking of stun bracelets, did you seen the letter from Paul S. Ruwaldt, Program Lead, DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Office of R&D, with subject "Improved Border Security, with the Detention and Possible Immobilization of Detainees, Using the Security Bracelet and ZATSS"? It concludes, "To make it clear, we are interested in the mobile read / write emitter concept in conjunction with the immobilizing security bracelet, and look forward to receiving a written proposal.":
page 1 (PDF; 88KB)
page 2 (PDF; 140KB)
July 11, 2008 5:29 PM
Bob, why won't you answer the questions posted at 4:36?
July 11, 2008 5:37 PM
Here we go again -- Friday afternoon puppies.
Still waiting for your truthful answers on your justification for demanind IDs.
Still waiting for your Privacy Impact statement and your system of records notification concerning the database.
Still waiting for your publication of the actual full frontal images from your electronic stripsearch machines.
This sounds like something strikingly similar to a fanous dialogue that took place on the floor of the UN Security Council on Oct 25, 1962:
Valerian Zorin: "You will have your answer in due time."
Adlai Stevenson: "I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over."
Congratulations, Kip, you're no better than an old Soviet diplomat.
And, everyone of the 68% who don't approve of anything you or your administration is doing are echoing Ambassador Stevenson's in-your-face reply.
For the rest of you TSA people who weren't around in 1962, look it up.
July 11, 2008 5:50 PM
If you are serious about ID, why do you trust the potential terrorists to print out and deliver a boarding pass to you?
July 11, 2008 5:53 PM
Bob, how is a butter knife in a pilot's bag a threat to anyone?
July 11, 2008 6:19 PM
Oh now I get it, dang why didn't you guys just say so in the first place.
The reason the TSA is illegally using forced identification verification as a criterion to granting access to a sterile area is so they will know who owns the crap that gets lost at the airport.
Thanks Nico for clearing that up.
July 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Here we go yet again...
TSA, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CHOCOLATE CHIPS IN MY COOKIES YOU G-DAMNED IMPERIALIST FASCISTS ...
You cant win with these whining pigs...
I hope they don't cause you Good folks to stop doing what you do on this message forum...
THANK you for what you do! Honestly the 99% of the rest us agree...
July 11, 2008 6:49 PM
Bob, could you please address the Salon butter knife column?
You do the TSA no favors posting pats on the back like this one while ignoring the very legitimate concerns raised by a pilot who deals with your agency every day.
When we hear utterly absurd security stories like that one, it only reinforces the notion that the TSA is training screeners to perform security theater, not actual security.
It would seem that each minute a screener spends worrying about butter knives, 3 ounce shampoo bottles, and dangerous water bottles is a minute that screener isn't looking for actual security threats and dangerous travelers.
July 11, 2008 6:57 PM
That was a very, very, very lame post.
Please answer our questions on real problems you have to solve.
July 11, 2008 7:46 PM
No guys,
Bob could you adress the tons of questions on other posts that nobody adressed. Heck nobody even pretended to adress them. now you come back for the funny posts?
tacky dude
July 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Aha, another puppydog posting.
July 11, 2008 7:57 PM
"We have had success using Web sites like MySpace to find the owner of a lost driver's license."
Wait a minute!!
You are kidding me, I hope.
Do you realize that driver licenses have the owner's name and address printed right on them?
July 11, 2008 8:25 PM
Of all the TSA issues... this is the one you pick??
July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
So you guys can do a nice spin piece about a $30k watch being returned. How about trying to spin this article?
Suspected Sexual Predator A TSA Agent
I found this particular nugget from the story interesting:
"She told the Tribune she couldn't cannot comment further on the case but that the TSA is conducting an internal investigation to see if any action should be taken."
Bolding mine. What do you mean IF? This is a serious allegation and a serious abuse of the public trust (not that TSA isn't accustomed to abusing the public trust). Action should be taken like a suspension without pay until he's cleared (then give him back pay if exonerated).
So much for the background checks, eh? We can't even trust you to properly check your own, and now you want to try to do the same with SecureFlight?
Give me a break.
Robert
July 11, 2008 8:37 PM
Bob Hanssen wrote
For the rest of you TSA people who weren't around in 1962, look it up.
No need to, even though I was born in 1982. As I mentioned in another thread, I'm a student of history. Adlai ran a big circle around Zorin that day, and left us with many memorable and awesome quotes.
"You are in the courtroom of world opinion…"
"Yes or no — don't wait for the translation — yes or no?"
Cuban Missile Crisis, yo.
An Anonymous citizen wrote... again... :
Why have you repeatedly refused to answer these questions? What are you afraid of?
Dude, why do you keep spamming this? You already got your answer. Except for the part about asking about money; that's way above my pay grade to even try to speculate on.
Ahem.
A couple of folks have asked about the butter knife in the pilot's bag. As always, here I pop up to deliver the official stance on what the policy says without violating the SSI guidelines through an interesting verbal dance. I have also come with an interjection of my own personal view on the matter.
In as much as the knife itself goes... yeah, technically, it's a prohibited item. Airline crew get a couple neat perks that the average Citizen Joe doesn't get, in that they don't have to remove their shoes (assuming they don't alarm) and that they can carry all the liquids and gels they want through the checkpoint no matter how big they are.
They, however, still have to abide by some other guidelines, such as the removal of coats and jackets that aren't form-fitted to the body (at the walk-thru screener's discretion), and the rest of the prohibited items list. The only exception they're granted there is the liquids and gels.
And, yes, round-tipped metal butter knives with those microscopic little teeth, which are technically serrates, are prohibited.
I suspect the author of the article Aaron cited probably exaggerated on the behavior of the officers themselves, but since neither I nor anyone else here was there, that'd be an academic argument not worth getting into.
From a technical standpoint, the TSOs did exactly what they were supposed to do in regards to the knife.
However, the standard operating procedure is not Holy Writ (as Kip Hawley recently said in a statement to the TSOs). I think just about everybody I personally know as a screener, lead, or supervisor would probably have just used our personal discretion to let them go even if it was just a regular passenger, nevermind if it was flight crew. Nevermind that said flight crew was in uniform.
That's not to say that they were incorrect in stopping the knife from entering the sterile area, though. They acted at their discretion in the matter.
July 11, 2008 9:28 PM
Aaron said...
Bob, could you please address the Salon butter knife column?
You do the TSA no favors posting pats on the back like this one while ignoring the very legitimate concerns raised by a pilot who deals with your agency every day.
When we hear utterly absurd security stories like that one, it only reinforces the notion that the TSA is training screeners to perform security theater, not actual security.
It would seem that each minute a screener spends worrying about butter knives, 3 ounce shampoo bottles, and dangerous water bottles is a minute that screener isn't looking for actual security threats and dangerous travelers.
Blogger Bob is busy right now trying to find the law that allows for forced ID verification, so allow me to address that article.
First let me say I have known at least 50 pilots, all but 3 had a God complex. Read the article and keep the God complex in mind. The whole article could be summed up as followed "I am a pilot, I am special, rules are just for mere mortals."
The argument that pilots should get a pass on bringing "dangerous" items on board because if they really wanted to cause harm they could just crash the plane, is specious reasoning at its best.
All commercial flights have at least TWO pilots in the cockpit, sometimes they have three. In order for a rouge pilot to take over complete control of an airplane (s)he would need to disable the other pilot(s).
If a pilot is allowed smuggle a weapon on board by just showing ID and not submitting to a screening or like in this case is allowed to board with a prohibited "weapon" they have a greater chance of being able to disable the other pilot and causing harm with the aircraft.
If the rules say no knives, then no knives. It doesn't matter if you are a pilot, priest or Kip.
July 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Ah, Fridays. The roar of the jets, the whine of the comment section. I kinda like the "puppy" stories on days like today. Please feel free to continue them, and to keep humanizing the face of TSA.
It was a long week this week - about 6,000 air miles, all within the continental 48. Security at multiple airports across the country. Did I show ID? Sure. I showed it to TSA. I showed it to Hertz. I showed it to a hotel with my VISA card. It's an increasingly paranoid world, and at least TSA does me the courtesy of looking at it with some knowledge of what it means and with some idea of what they're doing with it.
And every last TSA agent, bar none, treated me like a human being. I got smiles, I got pleasant comments, and the worst TSA attitude I've had to deal with lately was one of fatigue when they were near the end of a shift. Given how tired _I_ was today, I shared their pain.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but I really appreciate TSA, less for the security itself than for the professionalism and courtesy that I see nearly every time I fly. And, come to think of it, every time I read this blog.
July 12, 2008 1:30 AM
Thank you for filling in for Bob, Trollkiller, while he is busy researching... :o)
In response to your Bob response, just let me say that any commercial pilot could probably grab a knife or two from the plane's galley with no problem, and in fact he could probably have a flight attendant BRING him one with a simple call on the intercom.
Keeping a uniformed, ID'd pilot from bringing on-board an airline butter knife identical to the dozens just like it already on board and readily accessible to not only the pilot, but to many of the passengers, really does NOT improve security in any measurable way.
Yes, the TSA "rules" (established by fiat, not engraved on stone tablets - or even committed to law) probably do say, secretly, that airline butter knives with bumpy edges may not be brought on board even though the service folks just loaded several dozen on board, but the "TSO Discretion" that has been spoken so highly of would argue that a 1 or 2 percent increase in the number of serrated butter knives on board the aircraft will not appreciably reduce security, so why NOT allow it in board accompanied by the plane's pilot?
(The true absurdity of not allowing it sounds just SO much like a Monty Python sketch...) (Cheese Shop? Dead Parrot?)
July 12, 2008 3:35 AM
I don't understand the hoopla over doing what most people would consider both decent and morally correct. I guess that you get good press whenever you can, considering that TSA continues to demonstrate its inability to find weapons while concentrating on the war on liquids, shoe removal, and inanities of laptop removal.
Nice try though, but no cigar. Try again.
July 12, 2008 8:06 AM
Why haven't you posted any information on the Denver TSO recently arrested on suspicion of soliciting for underage sex? Why didn't any of the Denver BDOs discover this? Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
July 12, 2008 8:25 AM
@ Brandon,
I read the blog post regarding the laptops and I didn't see one sentence alluding to the TSA stealing the laptops. Then, for some unknown reason, you actually asked the TSA if they were going to do anything to prevent the loss/theft of laptops. How about this: BE RESPONSBILE FOR YOUR SELF AND YOUR BELONGINGS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR YOU! Yes, that's right, I used capital letters because you and the others who don't get it need to see it big so it might sink in when you read it. Sheesh...if you ran things we'd have a Federal Laptop Security Recovery Nanny Agency. Also, Brandon, prohibited items are surrendered, by the owner, and not taken like you assert. Again, if people took the time to be responsible and learn what can and cannot come through the checkpoint we wouldn't have this nonsense going on. Nope, the joke is "on" you this time. Your argument has no validity and is based simply on your anti TSI bias which has clouded any judgment and reasoning you may have had. Please, find a new line to toe instead of singing the same old FT.com broken record brigade fight song.
July 12, 2008 9:12 AM
Hmmm...ask the pilot at Salon.com. This is the guy that that is being viewed as an expert in aviation security based upon his knife incident:
http://www.askthepilot.com/author.html
Not too much security cred with that bio I have to say, but I will give him a point for goin' lots-o-places and knowin' stuff about flying. C'mon guys...get a better cheerleader for your cause.
July 12, 2008 9:30 AM
Quote from anonymous: "I read the blog post regarding the laptops and I didn't see one sentence alluding to the TSA stealing the laptops. Then, for some unknown reason, you actually asked the TSA if they were going to do anything to prevent the loss/theft of laptops. How about this: BE RESPONSBILE FOR YOUR SELF AND YOUR BELONGINGS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR YOU! Yes, that's right, I used capital letters because you and the others who don't get it need to see it big so it might sink in when you read it. Sheesh...if you ran things we'd have a Federal Laptop Security Recovery Nanny Agency. Also, Brandon, prohibited items are surrendered, by the owner, and not taken like you assert. Again, if people took the time to be responsible and learn what can and cannot come through the checkpoint we wouldn't have this nonsense going on. Nope, the joke is "on" you this time. Your argument has no validity and is based simply on your anti TSI bias which has clouded any judgment and reasoning you may have had. Please, find a new line to toe instead of singing the same old FT.com broken record brigade fight song."
Guess what? TSA often separates people from their belongings and often prevents people from keeping an eye on them. They ARE responsible for that part. I've been given grief about waiting for my belongings to go thru the x-ray before going thru the metal detector. I'm going to keep an eye on my belongings ... that's being repsonsible as you say. TSA sees it has slowing down the line.
Then of course, with the jam up afterwards while not being able to get thru to get your stuff, it's not terribly hard for someone to grab something while you're watching and disappear into the crowd.
Yes, people are responsible for stuff they forget. That doesn't mean that TSA is absolved from all responsibility in thefts that occur because of their policies.
Robert
July 12, 2008 11:11 AM
Dear TSA,
I seem to have had my Constitutional and civil rights stolen from me.
If you find them, please return them to the TSA office in Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. Hold them under the name "Abelard" as I would like to have them back as soon as possible.
Thanks!
July 12, 2008 12:26 PM
I wrote this post to inform our travelers about a lost and found process ... a process that works. All too often our folks are accused of theft, when in fact, the "stolen" item could be in our lost and found, just as Mr. Neuman found out.
I addressed the theft issue on February 15 on this very blog with The TSA, Our Officers, The Public and Theft post.
Mr. Neuman contacted me and thought it would be worthwhile to tell his story, to let people know there is a process. There is a means to get lost items returned. It's not about spin, it's about information.
With the very innaccurate story this week about 10,000 lost laptops, seems timely to me.
CBGB said:
how does this post serve the purpose of the blog as stated on its homepage?
This post is about the checkpoint screening process. Part of the screening process invloves passengers' personal items, items that become lost.
Robert Johnson said among other things:
So much for the background checks, eh?
Robert, you know backgrounds check the past, they don't predict the future. There will never be spin when it comes to one of our people breaking a law.
Nico
EoS Team
July 12, 2008 12:37 PM
The story about the $10,000 stolen each week seems ridiculous to me. Nothing like that has ever happened to me and I think the people involved in the security process are doing a fine job. I don't think its fair to make general assumptions based on a few stories and opinions.
July 12, 2008 1:09 PM
"Dude, why do you keep spamming this? You already got your answer."
Actually, Dean, posting legitimate questions to one's government is not spamming.
As for these questions being answered, that's simply not true; in fact, the need for authoritative answers is even greater since your claims about the new invasive interrogations in the absence of ID directly contradict what the official TSA position expressed on this blog is.
July 12, 2008 2:01 PM
"Abelard said...
Dear TSA,
I seem to have had my Constitutional and civil rights stolen from me.
If you find them, please return them to the TSA office in Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. Hold them under the name "Abelard" as I would like to have them back as soon as possible.
Thanks!"
ID aside (which they require at Blockbuster, to buy liquor, cigarettes, buy foreign currency, sell gold and even video games, to open a bank account, to rent an apartment...), which Constitutional and civil rights, precisely?
You have already voluntarily accepted to be checked, it's not a suprise, there are signs everywhere!
The right to keep your shoes on? The right to bring your water bottles anywhere?... I mean Six Flags would be violating THAT right... How is walking through a metal detector and having your bags scanned with an X-ray, and having your bags checked if there is a suspicion, any less on an invasion of privacy than the security features we have?
This cultist literal reading of the constitution without taking into consideration the motive behind the rights is nutty.
I mean, despite the 2nd ammendment you couldn't bring guns on a plane for like 40 years...
I'm just happy, you are using your 1st ammendment to be a crybaby.
July 12, 2008 2:55 PM
"We have had success using Web sites like MySpace to find the owner of a lost driver's license."
Wait a minute!!
You are kidding me, I hope.
Do you realize that driver licenses have the owner's name and address printed right on them?
who don't know that?
July 12, 2008 3:26 PM
ID aside (which they require at Blockbuster, to buy liquor, cigarettes, buy foreign currency, sell gold and even video games, to open a bank account, to rent an apartment...), which Constitutional and civil rights, precisely?
The right to freely travel in this country without having to show my identification to the government.
The transactions you mention above are between two private parties: me and a private business like a bank or Blockbuster or a housing complex. The government is not a private business.
This cultist literal reading of the constitution without taking into consideration the motive behind the rights is nutty.
Assume much? I never said which rights I was talking about. You just assumed I had a problem with walking through a metal detector (I don't) or not carrying a gun on a plane (I don't, but I can check my gun in with the airline and transport it with me if need be) or have my bags checked (again, I don't).
But I do have a problem being required to show ID to the government in order to get from point A to point B. If Southwest or Delta want to see my ID to buy a ticket, fine by me. Again, that is two private parties engaged in a private transaction. But once an agent of the government requires me to show ID, then I do have a problem with it.
This cultist literal reading of the constitution without taking into consideration the motive behind the rights is nutty.
I wonder if your concerns about the "literal reading" of the Constitution is universal or just for the sake of this discussion. I mean, that habeus corpus and not being allowed to secretly wiretap American citizens were always inconveniences.
I'm just happy, you are using your 1st ammendment to be a crybaby.
If standing up for the right to freely travel in this country without having a government agent demand ID from me makes me a crybaby, so be it.
I find that infinitely more palatable than being a Vichy citizen that many Americans have turned into.
July 12, 2008 3:26 PM
"Guess what? TSA often separates people from their belongings and often prevents people from keeping an eye on them. They ARE responsible for that part. I've been given grief about waiting for my belongings to go thru the x-ray before going thru the metal detector. I'm going to keep an eye on my belongings ... that's being repsonsible as you say. TSA sees it has slowing down the line."
Yep. When I went through Detroit a couple of days ago, I had to get a pat-down and wanding because I kept tripping the metal detector (for the love of me I still have no clue what it was, and the wand didn't find anything, so maybe you need new detectors there). I noticed someone looking shiftily at my stuff while I was waiting and I tried to collect it, but was prevented from doing so by a TSO. Anyone with quick fingers could have grabbed my cellphone or iPod and the TSO wouldn't care. Guarantee that my stuff will be safe while it is separated from me and then people will stop complaining.
July 12, 2008 4:56 PM
Quote from Nico: "Robert Johnson said among other things:
So much for the background checks, eh?
Robert, you know backgrounds check the past, they don't predict the future. There will never be spin when it comes to one of our people breaking a law."
So Nico, assuming you buy what you just said, just what exactly is the purpose of SecureFlight then? It just checks the past and doesn't predict the future. Sounds like a permission system to me.
And what about TSO's that are working that don't have clean backgrounds?
And what do you mean there's never any spin when it comes to someone breaking the law? When someone alleges it, TSA's first thing is to try to discredit poster. Remember when TSA violated Ryan Bird's 1st Amendment rights for writing "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on this baggie? What did TSA say? They said it was his fault and he was combative when all accounts show otherwise. That's just one example.
What about the questionable legality of requiring ID under the regs mentioned by Trollkiller (sorry, juts got off an international flight and too tired to look them up)? I guess you're right ... that isn't being spun. It's just being ignored.
Robert
July 12, 2008 4:57 PM
Abelard wrote:
I find that infinitely more palatable than being a Vichy citizen that many Americans have turned into.
Another awesome historical reference.
Just an observation. :D
July 12, 2008 5:09 PM
This one's off-topic, Blog Team, and I apologize for it, but to put it on the thread from where the answer came from would bury it ten posts back, and I wanted to make sure that Yangj08 got it.
To Yangj08:
I was looking through some of the older threads, and I saw that you had a question that never got answered in the "Why Did The Chicken Cross the Road?" thread.
Now, aside from the shocking news there, of a question not being answered, I can tell you that this is another one that I can... kind of... answer.
You wrote:
What happened to my last comment? I wanted to ask- what happens when a foreigner loses their ID? That secondary was because his ID was considered invalid by a TSO for whatever reason. Today that same person would have to go through verification or be denied. Where would verification data for non-Americans come from? Or will they all be denied?
We had this very situation crop up at Huntsville last week, where a very nice lady from Germany approached the security checkpoint and had no identification materials. Now, granted, my memory on the event is rusty since I wasn't directly involved in that particular event outside of just asking the Supervisor later what had happened, so I don't know exactly what it was she lost - her passport, presumably, but I don't know.
Either way, she filled out the verification form and the Supervisor made the call to the operations center. Five minutes or so later, she was being brought through the checkpoint.
Now, granted, your question was "where does the information come from?" and, to that, I don't know the answer either - from what I understand about the process, the person in the operations center on the other side of the line is the one that gets all of the information and they tell us what to say, and we have to give the passenger's answers back.
It's not quite the sum total of the answer you were looking for, but at least I can tell you that their identification is still verified, and that citizens of other countries traveling within the United States that lose their ID are not arbitarily denied entry into the sterile area.
July 12, 2008 5:42 PM
Blog Team - Keep up the good work, I appreciate the time you take to answer some of the vitriol that is posted on here. I do not envy your job though.... TSA LGA TSM
July 12, 2008 7:36 PM
Oh. My. God. I can't stand it any more! A spellchecker can't help you when you are using the wrong word! I've seen this one so often I'm about to slit my throat with a serrated butter knife!
A "rouge" pilot isn't dangerous; a "rouge" pilot is red!
A "rogue" pilot, now, that's a different story...
July 12, 2008 8:42 PM
"considering that TSA continues to demonstrate its inability to find weapons while concentrating on the war on liquids, shoe removal, and inanities of laptop removal."
You people are retarted. Have you ever heard of liquid explosives? Shoebombs? They exist. You gotta take your laptop out your bag cause the xray operator cannot see underneath it. All you gotta do is check a bag and and you wont have to deal with the liquids. Stop crying
July 12, 2008 9:13 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
July 12, 2008 10:21 PM
I'm curious... It's a little known fact that most public airplanes ship human remains in the cargo hold. What are the TSA's provisions for ensuring that the human remains being shipped are actually the remains of a deceased human and not a living terrorist or explosive device?
July 13, 2008 12:15 AM
"You gotta take your laptop out your bag cause the xray operator cannot see underneath it. All you gotta do is check a bag and and you wont have to deal with the liquids. Stop crying"
Your comment would be reasonable if checked baggage were still free. It's not. Charging $15 just to bring a snowglobe home is not reasonable. And as for the laptop- while living in China I never had to do that, even going Shanghai-HK (crossing an "international" border in the process), and they're nuts with the security with what they have going on.
July 13, 2008 1:42 AM
"You people are retarted."
Sigh.
It is really, really, not like me to call out spelling mistakes, I make enuff of my own, but...
That one is right up there with...
"You people are morans."
And...
"You people need to learn to speak are language."
If I laff, it is only to keep from crying.
,>)
July 13, 2008 3:22 AM
"Abelard said...
Dear TSA,
"I seem to have had my Constitutional and civil rights stolen from me".
If you want to get your civil rights back here's a suggestion. Go Greyhound.
I honestly believe this blog is counter productive because no matter how many questions the Blog team answer some blog troll will complain because they didn't get the answer they were looking for. Also when the Blog team tries to promote something positive, you have numerous bloggers making negative, cynical comments, to the point where it makes you wonder why was this blog even set up in the first place?
Lastly, for someone wondering about background checks when it comes to the workers @ TSA. I find it ironic that people care about TSO's past disgressions but when it comes to other passengers you people seem to care less whether or not passengers have a criminal record. A little hypocritcal if you ask me.
July 13, 2008 3:52 AM
Nice blog post, I've subscribed to this blog and I'm following it. Keep up the great work!
July 13, 2008 7:29 AM
Abelard wrote..
ID aside (which they require at Blockbuster, to buy liquor, cigarettes, buy foreign currency, sell gold and even video games, to open a bank account, to rent an apartment...), which Constitutional and civil rights, precisely?
The right to freely travel in this country without having to show my identification to the government.
I'm not a huge law buff, so I dont know if we actually have a civil right to travel wherever we want, however no one is stopping you from driving (or walking) to your destination.
The transactions you mention above are between two private parties: me and a private business like a bank or Blockbuster or a housing complex. The government is not a private business.
TSA is acting directly in the interests of the airlines. Our policies regarding who has access to the sterile area comes from 2 sources: The airlines and the specific port authorities.
But I do have a problem being required to show ID to the government in order to get from point A to point B. If Southwest or Delta want to see my ID to buy a ticket, fine by me. Again, that is two private parties engaged in a private transaction. But once an agent of the government requires me to show ID, then I do have a problem with it.
But really, WHY? You're still conducting actions in relation to a privilaged activity with a private company?
Keep in mind, you do not have a god given civil right to fly. It is a privilage and service provided by a private company. TSA is simply the federal regulation of security for these services.
I wonder if your concerns about the "literal reading" of the Constitution is universal or just for the sake of this discussion. I mean, that habeus corpus and not being allowed to secretly wiretap American citizens were always inconveniences.
I cant really wrap my head around the stretch you're making to get from ID check to illegal wiretapping.
If standing up for the right to freely travel in this country without having a government agent demand ID from me makes me a crybaby, so be it.
I find that infinitely more palatable than being a Vichy citizen that many Americans have turned into.
Again, you have a right (I'm assuming, I'm obviously not as smart as you, I don't know what all of our civil rights entail) to freely travel by train, car, or foot anywhere you want.
Except maybe like...military instillations.
Tell me, if you get pulled over while driving somewhere, do you complain to the police officer that you have to show him your ID?
Do you tell him you have a civil right to freely travel in our country?
July 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Do you realize how much it would cost TSA to mail out the DL's lost at airports each day and the liability of TSA if one was lost in the mail?
July 13, 2008 9:25 AM
You people are retarted. Have you ever heard of liquid explosives? Shoebombs? They exist. You gotta take your laptop out your bag cause the xray operator cannot see underneath it. All you gotta do is check a bag and and you wont have to deal with the liquids. Stop crying
Liquid explosives? Which ones? Oh, yes, nitroglycerin which may have detonated on the way to the airport. Binary explosives? Name one.
You don't take your laptop out in Europe, you know a place that has had terrorism for a very long time.
Shoe bomber? One duffus with a shoe bomb now leads to us removing our shoes. How about donkey bombs? How about truck bombs? TSA isn't doing anything about either donkeys or trucks.
I pointed out TSA's failures and as such they are your failures as well.
July 13, 2008 9:36 AM
Tell you what, tell the TSA to stop screening people and just let anyone go on planes and fly. Since many of you feel that the TSA is a waste of time, how would feel getting on a plane full of people that are not screened?
July 13, 2008 10:16 AM
"You people are retarted."
How do you know I've stocked up on tarts?
"Have you ever heard of liquid explosives? Shoebombs? They exist."
Hey, Chicken Little, the sky is falling... We do know about ONE shoebomber... Its not like they are on special at Walmart.
"You gotta take your laptop out your bag cause the xray operator cannot see underneath it."
I guess he doesn't have X-Ray vision, either. I can't see through my laptop, the case is opaque. Or, did you mnean something else?
" All you gotta do is check a bag and and you wont have to deal with the liquids. Stop crying"
Perhaps you should consider a course in creative writing, since articulate prose seems to be difficult for you. It would help you to be at least entertaining, in a positive way.
July 13, 2008 10:20 AM
"Either way, she filled out the verification form and the Supervisor made the call to the operations center. Five minutes or so later, she was being brought through the checkpoint."
That's a tad creepy- to think that the TSA has access to information on anyone from anywhere on this planet. Understandable in the context (the TSA feels the need to know who you are before you can fly) but still, to think that one country has access to information on any person from any other country...
Thanks for answering, by the way. The higher-ups really need to see what you're doing and recognize you for it- I'm certainly not the only one that you've helped out on this blog.
July 13, 2008 10:47 AM
TSO's have the most thankless job of anyone in our society, yet people still sign up to make sure you and your families are safe when they travel (no matter how much you may not like them). No system is perfect and the TSO's are doing their absolute best to maintain security within the aviation sector.
To complain about lost goods and required ID is a bit absurd. If you can't go somewhere without losing your stuff, stop taking so much stuff with you or put it in your bag before you enter the checkpoint. If you don't want to show ID then don't fly. No one says you have to fly, but they do say you have to provide ID in order to fly.
It was not TSA that caused the invasion of our privacy, it was terrorist organizations that attacked us on our own soil. I know it is hard for some to remember almost seven years ago, but we need not forget.
July 13, 2008 10:49 AM
Dunstan said...
"You people are retarted."
How do you know I've stocked up on tarts?
"Have you ever heard of liquid explosives? Shoebombs? They exist."
Hey, Chicken Little, the sky is falling... We do know about ONE shoebomber... Its not like they are on special at Walmart.
"You gotta take your laptop out your bag cause the xray operator cannot see underneath it."
I guess he doesn't have X-Ray vision, either. I can't see through my laptop, the case is opaque. Or, did you mnean something else?
" All you gotta do is check a bag and and you wont have to deal with the liquids. Stop crying"
Perhaps you should consider a course in creative writing, since articulate prose seems to be difficult for you. It would help you to be at least entertaining, in a positive way.
July 13, 2008 10:20 AM
Dunstan,
Where do I begin...?
Shoe Bombs:
Well Chicken Little, try Google or whatever search engine you use and do some research on the subject first so you do not look, well stupid.
There were two shoe bombers, yes I said two (2). The second one is now in prison in the United Kingdom for his crime. Seems he "chicken"ed out and did not get on his flight. He was caught a few years later and like I said he is paying for it.
Liquid Explosives:
Same routine, Google the subject and do your research. Unlike the many naysayers’ on this blog, the truth will set you free. Not all liquid explosives are so dangerous that they will explode when breathed upon. You can indeed transport them without causing a premature detonation, unlike your comments which seem like a premature regurgitation of the party line. Liquid Explosives are a real threat whether you chose to believe it or not. Me telling you so won't change any of the naysayer’s minds so let me suggest doing some research first. There are numerous "Independently Certified" (read not affiliated with the federal government) if that is what you want, websites run by very prestigious firms that will provide to you all of the facts on liquid explosives.
The laptop:
Any large (not hand held) electronic device is very dense when viewed on x-ray. The density comes from so many small individual components all in close proximity that causes a much cluttered and sometimes opaque image. By separating the large electronic (laptop) from any other item (charger, cables, spare batteries, drives, etc.) reduces the TIME it takes to clear the item and it also reduces the likelihood of a bag search which also save TIME.
It seems to me that the sky fell on you head preventing you from conducting yourself in a professional manner, reducing you to childish name calling, yes I did the same only to illustrate my point, Quit toting the party line and do your own research. Get educated on the subject. The islamofacist terrorist themselves (they do exist) have, and will, use the same techniques if they believe it will succeed, over and over again until the do indeed succeed.
July 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Anonymous wrote:
Blog Team - Keep up the good work, I appreciate the time you take to answer some of the vitriol that is posted on here. I do not envy your job though.... TSA LGA TSM
I'm not a member of the Blog Team, but I gotta say that I don't envy your job, either! A Security Manager at LaGuardia airport? Holy crap. Dollars to pesos says you're working your butt off from the time you clock in to the time you clock out.
:D
July 13, 2008 12:45 PM
"Anonymous said...
Tell you what, tell the TSA to stop screening people and just let anyone go on planes and fly. Since many of you feel that the TSA is a waste of time, how would feel getting on a plane full of people that are not screened?"
That is exactly what happens over at General Aviation with the same low rate of terrorist sightings. Very few people are suggesting that screening is totally unnecessary, just that much of the current process needs a great deal of improvement. There have been probably 15-20 billion passenger flights world wide since 9/11, one shoe bomber, a few plots foiled by the intelligence and law enforcement community, a rather serious number of personal weapons confiscated, and a mountain of harmless items discarded. The rules are shamelessly distorted, often misapplied or misrepresented, hidden behind secret security lists, and the result is confusing to both the ill trained TSO's, and the average passenger. Personally, I feel that something more akin to Airport Watch is preferable to TSA in its current form, but then, I like my privacy. If you feel the need for so much security, shouldn't the security people be professional in their interactions with the public, and beyond reproach? A 22% yearly turn over rate speaks volumes about the TSA. I do have respect for anyone who can do the job well, sadly it seems far more difficult than it rally needs to be.
July 13, 2008 12:51 PM
To the holier-than-thous who say their was only "one shoe bomber": you talk as if a shoe bomber is a natural phenomenom, like "why buy blizzard insurance in Miami when it only snowed once decades ago".
Guess what, the shoe bomb plot only didn't work because the guy they used was an idiot. He was even questioned by the police and they let him go. If his shoes wouldn't have been wet...
Or do you honestly think they wouldn't give it another shot if they think it would work?
Here's what really gets under my skin, some of these people act like they are the greatest geniuses to walk the earth...
July 13, 2008 12:56 PM
There are several ways to travel, airplane is only one of them, don't like to show ID?
Take AMTRAK, car, Greyhound, bike, walk...
July 13, 2008 12:59 PM
Here we go again:
A screener from Seattle wrote:
"Tell me, if you get pulled over while driving somewhere, do you complain to the police officer that you have to show him your ID?"
You are NOT, showing the police officer your ID. You ARE showing him/her your LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE.
Seattle also wrote:
"Our policies regarding who has access to the sterile area comes from 2 sources: The airlines and the specific port authorities."
Hogwash. Your policies come directly from Kip and Chertoff and their cohorts who see a terrorist behind every shrub.
The airlines are not dictating policy to the TSA. The airlines know full well that the flying public is fed up with the TSA and the sham that it calls "security." The airlines are losing revenue in large part due to people who refuse to fly because of the harassment at checkpoints.
Please don't try to be like Dean from Huntsville. He at least seems to know what he's talking about. You, on the other hand, don't have a clue - and you are representative of how many of us feel about the TSA and its inept employees.
BTW - again the question is asked: How much are the bloggers paying people to post favorable/supportive comments. I seem to notice that such are all posted in sequence. Tells me you're out beating the bushes for people to say nice things about you.
July 13, 2008 1:02 PM
SeattleScreener said...
"I'm not a huge law buff, so I dont know if we actually have a civil right to travel wherever we want, however no one is stopping you from driving (or walking) to your destination.
Again, you have a right (I'm assuming, I'm obviously not as smart as you, I don't know what all of our civil rights entail) to freely travel by train, car, or foot anywhere you want."
Actually you can still fly privately without much of the visible security hoopla.
Except maybe like...military instillations.
Sorry, many military airbases have opened themselves to use by private aircraft. 18 months ago, I was flown from one Air Force base to another to rescue a dog,
flew the return flight with him curled up next to me. We taxied past fighters and other military aircraft, and never showed ID. We were not even approached by any security types, though we conversed with people at GA.
"Tell me, if you get pulled over while driving somewhere, do you complain to the police officer that you have to show him your ID?
Do you tell him you have a civil right to freely travel in our country?"
That is an entirely different situation, different laws apply, and a driver is required to have valid ID, and registration. TSO's are not LEO's, and do not have the same duties and obligations under state laws.
July 13, 2008 1:08 PM
"Anonymous said...
There are several ways to travel, airplane is only one of them, don't like to show ID?
Take AMTRAK, car, Greyhound, bike, walk..."
or fly... There are 18,000 airports in the US. ID checks are for sterile areas, only.
July 13, 2008 1:17 PM
"There were two shoe bombers, yes I said two (2). The second one is now in prison in the United Kingdom for his crime. Seems he "chicken"ed out and did not get on his flight. He was caught a few years later and like I said he is paying for it."
Sorry, Chicken Little, I stand corrected, TWO shoe bombers...
As far as I can tell, there is no party line with regard to TSA, just some rather telling public observation over the past six years. If you don't like being held to a high standard of professional and personal conduct, quit. LEO's are held to similar standards. A 22% yearly turn over is a remarkable statement of job dissatisfaction by itself.
July 13, 2008 1:27 PM
"How much are the bloggers paying people to post favorable/supportive comments."
Hmmm just because this administration has manipulated the media (Google: Jeff Gannon, Judith Miller etc.) it does not mean that all pro-TSA posts are paid.
At least I hope they are not paying for the ones with the embarassing spelling mistatkes.
Anyway, some pro-TSA posts are spam being used by people to sneak adds into this blog.
Frank @ July 12, 2008 1:09 PM is using his nice post so his sig can promote Yeti stuff.
Some people arn't even nice to the TSA and want to sell things like the Acne medication @
July 12, 2008 3:26 PM
TSA, if you are paying for favorable posts please contact me off list so we can talk about rates.
,>)
July 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...
Oh. My. God. I can't stand it any more! A spellchecker can't help you when you are using the wrong word! I've seen this one so often I'm about to slit my throat with a serrated butter knife!
A "rouge" pilot isn't dangerous; a "rouge" pilot is red!
A "rogue" pilot, now, that's a different story...
Whoops caught me in a typo. Boy is my face rogue.
;)
July 13, 2008 2:38 PM
Dunstan said...
"There were two shoe bombers, yes I said two (2). The second one is now in prison in the United Kingdom for his crime. Seems he "chicken"ed out and did not get on his flight. He was caught a few years later and like I said he is paying for it."
Sorry, Chicken Little, I stand corrected, TWO shoe bombers...
As far as I can tell, there is no party line with regard to TSA, just some rather telling public observation over the past six years. If you don't like being held to a high standard of professional and personal conduct, quit. LEO's are held to similar standards. A 22% yearly turn over is a remarkable statement of job dissatisfaction by itself.
Why only hit on one of the subjects (shoe bomber), do you not like having your feet held to the fire with facts?
What about the liquid threat?
Care to tackle that one?
If you do in fact remember the first attack on the world trade center in '93, they failed to destroy the towers but what happened, they went right back to work and this time they did not fail. They have publically stated that they will keep attacking aviation, they tried with shoes and liquids in the past and I'll take thier word on the stated fact that they will try again until the succeed, this is why we do what we do!
You can chose to ignore them, we do not have that luxury, you see we have sworn to protect this Country against such threats.
Next!
Nuff Ced
July 13, 2008 2:39 PM
mike said...
"We have had success using Web sites like MySpace to find the owner of a lost driver's license."
Wait a minute!!
You are kidding me, I hope.
Do you realize that driver licenses have the owner's name and address printed right on them?
who don't know that?
Come on dude, she was hot!! I think what they meant to say is they used MySpace to contact the owner of the license. After all if the licence has the wrong address it is no longer valid and therefore useless to the TSA. Right?
July 13, 2008 2:42 PM
I'm not a huge law buff, so I dont know if we actually have a civil right to travel wherever we want, however no one is stopping you from driving (or walking) to your destination.
Either we have a right to freely travel or we don't. Your statement is riding the fence. If I don't have the right to freely travel, then the mode of transportation is irrelevant.
TSA is acting directly in the interests of the airlines. Our policies regarding who has access to the sterile area comes from 2 sources: The airlines and the specific port authorities.
First, the TSA, even if acting as a proxy for the airlines, is still a government entity and not a private business. Second, just because you have policies derived from the airlines and port authorities doesn't mean those are not subject to the law.
But really, WHY? You're still conducting actions in relation to a privilaged activity with a private company?
Because that is the law. I am not required to show ID to enter the "sterile area" as Trollkiller has demonstrated time and time again.
You are correct that I am conducting a privileged transaction between myself and a private company. The TSA, again, is NOT a private company even if it is working in conjunction with a private company.
I cant really wrap my head around the stretch you're making to get from ID check to illegal wiretapping.
Sorry. In the context of what the person I was responding to wrote, I and others were called "cultists" because we believed passionate in the word of the Constitutions. The poster was taking a laissez faire attitude regarding our rights.
Tell me, if you get pulled over while driving somewhere, do you complain to the police officer that you have to show him your ID?
Do you tell him you have a civil right to freely travel in our country?
I am glad you asked. A police officer cannot randomly stop you while driving (or walking for that matter) without probable cause. You are not required to show ID to a law enforcement officer just because he or she randomly stops you without cause. If I am speeding or ran a red light or have a broken tail light, I am more than happy to present my driver's license to the officer because I am being stopped as the officer has probable cause that I have violated the law.
But if an officer stops me "just because," he or she is not going to see my ID.
Because that is the law.
July 13, 2008 2:46 PM
Good grief, if you don't have anything to hide show your damn ID! Stop complaining about being made to show something, you idiots complain about everything! Do you wonder why the TSA turnover rate is so high? Just look at the kind of idiots they have to deal with everyday!!!
July 13, 2008 2:57 PM
"Since many of you feel that the TSA is a waste of time, how would feel getting on a plane full of people that are not screened?"
No one has called for an end to all security screening, and it's typically dishonest of a TSA apologist to lie and pretend anyone has made that call.
What we object to is POINTLESS measures with no empirical grounding that do nothing but make flying miserable and waste our and your time. Liquids are not a threat and shoes are not a threat, nor is traveling without an ID. End the 3.4-1-1 nonsense, stop mandatory shoe removal, and stop forcing those who lost their ID into invasive interrogations -- simply check their bags and let them be on their way. Screenings will go faster, passengers will be happier, and security will not be affected one whit.
July 13, 2008 3:25 PM
Can someone please answer our question from two posts ago: Are we now allowed to keep our laptops in their protective sleeves, or was that post just to annoy us by saying the sleeves are OK, but we still won't let people use them?
July 13, 2008 3:27 PM
"Why only hit on one of the subjects (shoe bomber), do you not like having your feet held to the fire with facts?"
Do I get to keep my shoes? Gosh, my torch gets hotter than that...
I don't find your "facts" very compelling. It seems that everyone that remotely disagrees with you is part of some nebulous "they", or "them". Whoever they are- some vast conspiracy, no doubt.
I'm not a chemist versed in making explosives, so I'd rather not delve further into your little realm, which seems quite hysterical. Think what you want, I find your focus on this one historical event over the top, it doesn't come close to the current death toll in Africa or a host of other historical events. The winners are always heroes, their opposition can always be branded traitors or terrorists.
July 13, 2008 3:41 PM
Anonymous said: "End the 3.4-1-1 nonsense, stop mandatory shoe removal, and stop forcing those who lost their ID into invasive interrogations -- simply check their bags and let them be on their way. Screenings will go faster, passengers will be happier, and security will not be affected one whit."
I would like to second that and add to end mandatory laptop removal and SSSS boarding passes (probably the stupidest measure of all).
July 13, 2008 5:51 PM
Why haven't you posted any information on the Denver TSO recently arrested on suspicion of soliciting for underage sex? Why didn't any of the Denver BDOs discover this? Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
so everyone's got something to say about this pervert in denver. its funny how some freak can be seen on dateline trying to get fresh with a kid and everyone looks down on him.
but someone else does the same horrible thing and the place he works catches the heat? just because its tsa?
wow. this amazes me.
you ask why didnt bdo's catch this? is that a serious question?
1. this man was hired in 2004. bdo's started this year.
lets try to understand some thing.
how can you expect a bdo to look at a coworker and because of his training say, "oh hes a predator" its not a bdos job too focus on us as tso's. they are there to look at passengers. yes this man is a predator, but unless he was trying to get the phone numbers of all the highschool or younger aged passengers theres no way to know what anyone does on there off time. and for anyone to just expect that because we are security or becuase we have bdo's that we shouldve somehow known is a bit beyond rediculous. our job is to make sure flights are safe. thats it.
Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
unless he had priors how exactly would a backround check uncover this? trust me when i say the backround check is about invasive as they come its a long drawn out tedious and frustrating process and its as thurough as they come it however does not include a trip through some ones personal computer to "see" if they might be a predator.
lets try and be a little bit more realistic in our expectations instead of just jumping at any chance to blame TSA for anything we can grab.
July 13, 2008 6:30 PM
Good grief, if you don't have anything to hide show your damn ID!
And if you don't have anything to hide, I demand you remove all curtains, blinds or shutters from your residence.
After all, what could you possibly be doing in there that needs to be hidden from anyone that is passing by?
July 13, 2008 7:44 PM
"Good grief, if you don't have anything to hide show your damn ID! Stop complaining about being made to show something, you idiots complain about everything! Do you wonder why the TSA turnover rate is so high? Just look at the kind of idiots they have to deal with everyday!!!"
Try to say something nice about your co-workers...
July 13, 2008 8:00 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm curious... It's a little known fact that most public airplanes ship human remains in the cargo hold. What are the TSA's provisions for ensuring that the human remains being shipped are actually the remains of a deceased human and not a living terrorist or explosive device?
Well, if it looks like a human body, the bag would be searched immediately.
A little story... (It's a bit gross)
There's a guy at our airport, Logan (BOS) up from San Antonio (SAT). He was doing the, they saw something on the X-ray.
Turns out it was a severed head, apparently some woman had actually dug her husband's body and took the head with her.
And other story from this guy, he was doing the bags again, the X-ray image came out looking blurred which mean something has moved. He opened it up, turned out be a bunch of rattlesnakes.
So if you have someone squirming around in a casket or a box... well the image is gonna come out funky.
July 13, 2008 10:30 PM
Tez said in part;
so everyone's got something to say about this pervert in denver. its funny how some freak can be seen on dateline trying to get fresh with a kid and everyone looks down on him.
but someone else does the same horrible thing and the place he works catches the heat? just because its tsa?
...........................
Perhaps if TSA did not run up the brag flags like we have seen done here,i.e., found false ID post, the TSA Week at a glance, we would be a little more accomodating to the news reports of TSA problems.
The way I see it if TSA wants to brag about its catches then they should step up and discuss their failures also. What we got was that an investigation would be conducted in the case of the suspected pedophile. Any other federal agency would place the perp in some leave status, paid or unpaid, until a resolution was reached.
TSA claims that viewing my ID lets them know who is getting on the planes. Yet they don't even know who is working for them.
July 13, 2008 10:34 PM
Getting back to the butter knife absurdity, I understand that the screeners were following the rules to a "T."
My question is why is the rule in place to begin with?
Why are passengers (much less pilots) prohibited from bringing butter knives on board a plane, when those planes have dozens of those exact same butter knives in the first class cabin?
Does the TSA actually think someone could disrupt a flight with a butter knife?
July 13, 2008 11:33 PM
Aaron wrote:
My question is why is the rule in place to begin with?
Remember, tweezers and nail clippers were also prohibited at one point in the very long time ago, too.
It's probably a holdover from the earlier days of TSA, where any knife of any kind was made prohibited. This particular thing came out in a clarification document that accompanied the SOP where someone very specifically asked about round-tipped serrated butter knives, and whether they were prohibited or not.
The answer, clearly, was yes.
I want to say that was, like, 2004 or 2005, though. It's been a long time, but with the way the system operates, it doesn't really matter how old the rule is, it's still in effect until something new takes its place or it officially becomes invalidated.
In this case, it never did that I'm aware of.
July 14, 2008 1:53 AM
Dez sez...
wow. this amazes me.
you ask why didnt bdo's catch this? is that a serious question?
1. this man was hired in 2004. bdo's started this year.
lets try to understand some thing.
how can you expect a bdo to look at a coworker and because of his training say, "oh hes a predator" its not a bdos job too focus on us as tso's. they are there to look at passengers. yes this man is a predator, but unless he was trying to get the phone numbers of all the highschool or younger aged passengers theres no way to know what anyone does on there off time. and for anyone to just expect that because we are security or becuase we have bdo's that we shouldve somehow known is a bit beyond rediculous. our job is to make sure flights are safe. thats it.
Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
unless he had priors how exactly would a backround check uncover this? trust me when i say the backround check is about invasive as they come its a long drawn out tedious and frustrating process and its as thurough as they come it however does not include a trip through some ones personal computer to "see" if they might be a predator.
lets try and be a little bit more realistic in our expectations instead of just jumping at any chance to blame TSA for anything we can grab.
Let me help you out Dez, first the "shift" key is located next to the "z "key on the left and next to the "/" key on the right.
By the TSA's own press spin, BDOs are better at detecting the nefarious among us than Spider-Man. So the blame for the public's over assumption of the BDO's ability lays at the TSA's feet. I will agree that this alleged pervert most likely did not show any odd behavior at work so I personally won't blame the BDOs.
By your own admittance, even a background check as invasive as the TSA's does not predict future behavior. Armed with that fact, we can conclude that the new Clear type programs are pretty much worthless and only allow people to buy their way to the front of the line.
What I would like to know is if the alleged pervert ever worked the MMW or backscatter devices.
July 14, 2008 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...
Can someone please answer our question from two posts ago: Are we now allowed to keep our laptops in their protective sleeves, or was that post just to annoy us by saying the sleeves are OK, but we still won't let people use them?
Get in line, I am still waiting on an answer how Title 49 part 1540.105 & 1540.107 allows the TSA to use an identification verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area when the definitions in 1540.5 simply do not allow it.
July 14, 2008 3:26 AM
"Does the TSA actually think someone could disrupt a flight with a butter knife?"
Bear in mind TSA is run by people who think you can take down an airliner with a flip-flop and 3.5 ounces of Head & Shoulders.
July 14, 2008 6:16 AM
Dunstan said...
"Why only hit on one of the subjects (shoe bomber), do you not like having your feet held to the fire with facts?"
Do I get to keep my shoes? Gosh, my torch gets hotter than that...
I don't find your "facts" very compelling. It seems that everyone that remotely disagrees with you is part of some nebulous "they", or "them". Whoever they are- some vast conspiracy, no doubt.
I'm not a chemist versed in making explosives, so I'd rather not delve further into your little realm, which seems quite hysterical. Think what you want, I find your focus on this one historical event over the top, it doesn't come close to the current death toll in Africa or a host of other historical events. The winners are always heroes, their opposition can always be branded traitors or terrorists.
July 13, 2008 3:41 PM
What's the matter Dunstan you can't deal with facts. Personnally I don't care if you find them compelling or not, they are still facts. Do your research or quit raising false flags.
Are you going to answer the questions or are you going to ignore them in hopes that they will go away? Sounds like something I read on these blogs.
Nuff Ced
July 14, 2008 8:56 AM
There's been a lot of comment on the Dell-Ponemon laptop study. I urge you to read it, if you haven't. http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/services/dell_lost_laptop_study.pdf
While Ponemon himself admits that the study could have been more rigorous, let's not miss the value of the study--the findings.
Some of the findings are nothing new: label your stuff, and allow enough check-in time.
Others stress planning and organization: take only the data that you need on your laptop, encrypt sensitive data, and make backups. Corporate America could do a better job of helping business travelers determine which of these responsibilities belong to IT, and which should be covered by the traveler.
I found one of the findings, "Know who to call [to locate a lost item]", fascinating. An airport has lots of imaginary borders where one entity's resposibility begins and another's ends.
A key example is the discovery of rats in O'Hare airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbfwXsoDi9E). Responsibility for dealing with the rat problem is shared between the airlines (who "own" the gates), the airport authority (who has the concourses), and the concessionaires. Someone has to coordinate the eradication of the rats.
Likewise, the study noted that airports need to coordinate lost-and-found operations. Who do you call if something comes up missing at any given airport? Will TSA check with airports and concessionaires or check bathrooms for lost items?
July 14, 2008 9:30 AM
@ "Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
unless he had priors how exactly would a backround check uncover this? trust me when i say the backround check is about invasive as they come its a long drawn out tedious and frustrating process and its as thurough as they come it however does not include a trip through some ones personal computer to "see" if they might be a predator."
This is exactly why the No Fly List and TSA's ID screening is idiotic. You don't have priors for suicide bombing and hijacking. All the excuses that certainly apply to your 'miss' in the emplyment screening process also apply to much of your screening for terrorism.
July 14, 2008 9:44 AM
This post has been removed by the author.
July 14, 2008 10:12 AM
"Bear in mind TSA is run by people who think you can take down an airliner with a flip-flop and 3.5 ounces of Head & Shoulders."
That is one of the dumbest posts I've seen yet! I'm sorry you must be slow.
July 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...
If you want to get your civil rights back here's a suggestion. Go Greyhound.
They have a bus that runs from Ohio to Hawaii?! They've come a long way in the 20 years since I last rode a Greyhound bus. ;)
I honestly believe this blog is counter productive because no matter how many questions the Blog team answer some blog troll will complain because they didn't get the answer they were looking for.
A non sequitur is not an answer. They blog team has given us some of those, but not any actual answers. We get answers from Dean, when he's able.
Also when the Blog team tries to promote something positive, you have numerous bloggers making negative, cynical comments, to the point where it makes you wonder why was this blog even set up in the first place?
The only problem I have with it is that it buries the important issues. But it's not a big enough deal for me to comment on most of the time. It's not like they've answered any of the questions, anyhow.
Lastly, for someone wondering about background checks when it comes to the workers @ TSA. I find it ironic that people care about TSO's past disgressions but when it comes to other passengers you people seem to care less whether or not passengers have a criminal record. A little hypocritcal if you ask me.
No. The passengers are not charged with security. TSOs are. They should obviously be held to a higher standard than the flying public. That expectation is not hypocritical at all.
That said, I'm unfamiliar with this particular case. If there was no criminal record during the pre-employment background check, and there was no unusual behavior observed at work, then there would be no reason to suspect this individual TSO. The BDOs can only detect behavior that they observe. (and yes, they should look at TSOs as well as the flying public. The high attrition and low morale has gotta make them attractive to terrorist organizations as recruits. One hopes the TSA has things in play to prevent this.)
July 14, 2008 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...
"Bear in mind TSA is run by people who think you can take down an airliner with a flip-flop and 3.5 ounces of Head & Shoulders."
That is one of the dumbest posts I've seen yet! I'm sorry you must be slow.
I thought it was kinda funny. But my sense of humor is seriously warped, even for a geek, so it cannot be used to gauge what the general public would think is funny.
July 14, 2008 2:11 PM
HSVTSO "Remember, tweezers and nail clippers were also prohibited at one point in the very long time ago, too.
It's probably a holdover from the earlier days of TSA, where any knife of any kind was made prohibited. This particular thing came out in a clarification document that accompanied the SOP where someone very specifically asked about round-tipped serrated butter knives, and whether they were prohibited or not."
Hi HSV,
Thanks. Your posts are much more helpful and informative than the official bloggers' posts. Ages ago, I asked about why my little swiss army knife with the knife part removed gets taken, and "How sharp are 'round bladed butter knives'?", and 6 months later you are the first to post some sort of understandable bit of explanation: Some secret memo said "Serrated=Dangerous".
Thanks.
July 14, 2008 2:26 PM
And now we read of another IDless person's encouter with TSA (see FT TS/S for link):
"Brown’s ordeal didn’t end until more than an hour later, shortly before her flight took off. She was required to fill out a form, which TSA agents compared to public records to verify her identity; the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles provided a photo of her; and she was questioned about everything from her trip to her family. Agents also reviewed a tax return she was carrying."
What business is it of the TSA's to review a person's tax return? What does one's family have to do with being IDless?
The TSA, as well as the entire current administration, is totally out of control.
We need a revolution.
July 14, 2008 2:32 PM
Have you ever heard the phrase, "You can't please everyone"? Well, apparently, you guys will never be pleased. You have nothing better to do than sit around and wait for TSA to post something else so you can B*@#! some more. The purpose of this blog is for the communication between TSA and the traveling public and this particular blog was simply to let passengers out there know that they have ways to receive lost items back from
TSA and simply how to do so. Regardless of what you think, TSA is not here to steal from you, put on a security theater for you, or just waste your time. We do have in depth training on what we do every day at the checkpoint and in checked baggage. We do have bad apples, and unfortunately, they give the passengers the bad impressions of us, but that is at any workplace. Everyone seems to focus on the bad more than the good, so that is what gets out there. TSA is not perfect by any means, but a majority of the passengers appreciate the fact that we do our best to keep the traveling public safe and they have a RIGHT to feel safe. If we weren't here, anybody could bring anything on the plane and everyday would be like russian roulette and people who appreciate us have a right to fly without gambling their lives. So you out there who have nothing better to do than sit at your computer and wait for the next blog just so you can gripe at us, you need to grow up. We are here to help, for those of you who want it.
And for you bloggers who keep asking over and over (and over, and over, and over) again for answers on the ID issues, there WAS a blog posted that went over EACH individual question you had and EACH was answered individually!!!!!!!!! Just because you don't like the answer or still don't "get it" doesn't mean we didn't do our part. You spend more time being redundant in your questions than it would to just take out your ID!!!!!!!!!
July 14, 2008 2:59 PM
I took the time (yes I did) to read every post on this Blog. Wow, what a waste.
How trite the arguments on both sides have been. Not to mention all the flames spewed at each other when one, or the other misspells a word.
Maybe we could all just get over the misspellings part of communication. ANY of us can fat-finger the wrong keys, not to mention the dirty keyboards with sticky keys.
I have a recommendation for the TSA. In light of recent CNN news articles suggesting there aren't enough Air Marshalls; I say this: consider allowing *specially certified* carry conceal holders on board actually carrying concealed. By special certification, I mean someone who is trained (on their own dime) to handle flights conditions. Frankly, its not likely that any hijackers are going to succeed in getting a firearm on board certainly after 9/11. To that, it shouldn't be difficult to thwart a hijacker now adays by simply pulling a service firearm and subduing said hijacker.
If you don't like guns, then your argument should be no one can have one including the Police. If your argument is that only Police can be trusted with guns, what do we say about all the bad guys with guns? If your argument is that you don't like good guys having guns, then you're an idiot because of the other two conditions.
There are approximately 2000 carry conceal permits issued in the two counties that Amarillo straddles and we've never had a shoot-out in the street - the wild West never appeared as predicted.
Carry conceal holders, specially trained and certified could handle the job as they travel. You trust us next to you at the grocery store and in the malls and restaurants, why not sitting next to you on a plane?
Will you feel better knowing it was an on-duty Air Marshall who shot out the windows of the plane at 36,000 feet? Will you feel it was worth it if said Air Marshall actually stops a hijacker? Whats the difference? Shouldn't the hijacker be stopped at any cost?
July 14, 2008 3:24 PM
KellyMae81 got something right:
"they have a RIGHT to feel safe"
Kelly, dear, there's a huge difference between BEING safe and FEELING safe. TSA doesn't do much to actually make air travel safe, but rather makes infrequent travelers FEEL safe. Frequent flyers and thinking infrequent flyers know it's a charade - right down to the ID.
July 14, 2008 3:26 PM
Kellymae81:
We do have bad apples, and unfortunately, they give the passengers the bad impressions of us, but that is at any workplace. Everyone seems to focus on the bad more than the good, so that is what gets out there. TSA is not perfect by any means, but a majority of the passengers appreciate the fact that we do our best to keep the traveling public safe and they have a RIGHT to feel safe.
I understand your frustration ... but one of the purposes of this blog is to help TSA to become better at doing its job. If all we do is sit here and complement TSA on the things it's doing right, that won't accomplish anything. So, naturally, there's more emphasis put on the (few?) things that are wrong, so that they can be made better.
And for you bloggers who keep asking over and over (and over, and over, and over) again for answers on the ID issues, there WAS a blog posted that went over EACH individual question you had and EACH was answered individually!
Sorry ... I've asked my question multiple times, and it hasn't gotten an answer yet. Just because there was a post with lots of individual answers doesn't mean that they answered every question. I'm still waiting for any sort of answer to my question ...
... which still is, by the way ... how are TSOs validating boarding passes? It doesn't seem to do much good to validate IDs if the accompanying boarding passes (which are the only documents checked against the selectee/no-fly lists) aren't validated themselves ...
July 14, 2008 3:40 PM
kellymae81 said...
And for you bloggers who keep asking over and over (and over, and over, and over) again for answers on the ID issues, there WAS a blog posted that went over EACH individual question you had and EACH was answered individually!!!!!!!!! Just because you don't like the answer or still don't "get it" doesn't mean we didn't do our part. You spend more time being redundant in your questions than it would to just take out your ID!!!!!!!!!
Do you know what non sequitur means? It is latin for does not follow. It's not that we don't get the answer. It's that the answer does not follow the question that was actually asked. I can't tell if the TSA blog team and their apologists genuinely do not understand what is being asked, or if they are deliberately giving non-answers in an attempt to appease the masses without really answering a thing.
One example quickly springs to mind:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: We think it's important.
I may be paraphrasing, but that is the gist of it. A direct question was asked, and the answer did not fit the question. Most questions have been answered in the same manner. So, for example, I understand that the TSA thinks identity matters, but they didn't exactly answer why. This is why we "crybabies" are on here asking the same things over and over; it appears that the bloggers don't understand the questions.
July 14, 2008 3:49 PM
"We do have in depth training on what we do every day at the checkpoint and in checked baggage."
All the training in the world does not make pointless tasks that don't enhance security any less pointless, or air travel more secure. There's no need whatsoever to make people remove their shoes, to limit their liquids, or ask them what party they belong to and examine their tax returns if they forget their ID. TSA would have a much better reputation -- it's currently less popular than the IRS! -- if it dropped the useless security theatre and concentrated on things that DO work.
July 14, 2008 3:58 PM
"Honestly the 99% of the rest us agree..."
79% of statistics are made up on the spot!
July 14, 2008 4:09 PM
"We do have in depth training on what we do every day at the checkpoint and in checked baggage."
All the training in the world does not make pointless tasks that don't enhance security any less pointless, or air travel more secure. There's no need whatsoever to make people remove their shoes, to limit their liquids, or ask them what party they belong to and examine their tax returns if they forget their ID. TSA would have a much better reputation -- it's currently less popular than the IRS! -- if it dropped the useless security theatre and concentrated on things that DO work.
-----------------------------------
Wow you sound like a real intelligent individual. There is no reason to take shoes off is there. Only the reason that people could walk through the metal detector with their non-metalic explosive in there shoe and no one would know the difference. On the x-ray this would be detected. Its okay your not too smart.
And yes why would they limit liquids. Allowing a small amount might just blow off the persons hand, but if we let them bring in 2 liter bottles they could just blow off everyones head, along with the side of the plane. Maybe you are slow?
And about the tax return, party thing, I have no comment on that because that is just dumb. If that happened, it shouldn't have.
Why don't you think before you write.
So many of the people on this page sound like such idiots!
July 14, 2008 4:58 PM
Kellymae81 wrote:
"Regardless of what you think, TSA is not here to steal from you, put on a security theater for you, or just waste your time."
I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of "security theater". It is commonly used to describe security countermeasures that make people feel secure but provide little or no improvement to security. Few would argue that TSA exists to "put on a security theater".
"Everyone seems to focus on the bad more than the good, so that is what gets out there."
1) When attempting to improve something, there's little reason to focus on the good. 2) Do you really think that "what gets out there" is determined by mostly-anonymous comments posted to the TSA blog?
"a majority of the passengers appreciate the fact that we [at TSA] do our best to keep the traveling public safe and they have a RIGHT to feel safe."
Cite your source, please. I've never heard of such a study, but I'd be interested in reading about it.
"If we [at TSA] weren't here, anybody could bring anything on the plane"
I believe you are mistaken. Passengers were screened for weapons prior to formation of TSA. I suspect that practice would have continued even if TSA had never been formed.
"there WAS a blog [post about airport ID policies] that went over EACH individual question you had and EACH was answered individually!"
No, some questions were never answered. For instance (quoting and paraphrasing various others' questions):
1. In the context of ensuring air travel safety, what is the difference between two people, both of whom are willing to cooperate with TSA's invasive interrogations, one of whom politely declines to show ID, the other of whom claims he lost or misplaced his ID?
2. Why are the reported 10 people per day who decline to show ID considered so likely to be a threat to air travel security that TSA restricted their right to travel by refusing to allow them past TSA's airport checkpoints?
3. How does the cost of this new policy of invasive interrogations at government checkpoints in airports compare to that of to the previous policy of thoroughly screening anyone who did not show ID regardless of his reasoning?
4. TSA cites 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 and 1540.105(a)(2) as the law giving them authority to demand identification as a condition of granting access to a sterile area of an airport. 49 C.F.R § 1540.5 appears to limit such passenger screenings to searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries as the only requirement for granting access to the sterile area. How does TSA reconcile this conflict?
"You spend more time being redundant in your questions than it would to just take out your ID!"
Many of us have repeatedly stated that the time it takes to identify ourselves is of very little concern. Apparently, you don't get it. Please see, "What's Wrong with Showing ID? at The Identity Project.
July 14, 2008 5:00 PM
"Wow you sound like a real intelligent individual. There is no reason to take shoes off is there. Only the reason that people could walk through the metal detector with their non-metalic explosive in there shoe and no one would know the difference. On the x-ray this would be detected. Its okay your not too smart.
And yes why would they limit liquids. Allowing a small amount might just blow off the persons hand, but if we let them bring in 2 liter bottles they could just blow off everyones head, along with the side of the plane. Maybe you are slow?
And about the tax return, party thing, I have no comment on that because that is just dumb. If that happened, it shouldn't have.
Why don't you think before you write.
So many of the people on this page sound like such idiots!"
Hey, self proclaimed genius;
I have a question for you- which item is inherently less safe- (1)a 12 ounce bottle of a colorless, tasteless liquid,
(2) a fully fueled, privately flown Gulfstream?
July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
Yes, I understand that if we (TSA) weren't here, there would still be some form of screening, but not a trained staff that studies past terroristic plots and tries to enhance security accordingly. TSA constantly upgrades their training and security procedures by what we learn and implement the procedures we think is best to secure flights. Just like the removal of shoes everyone hates...yes, it is annoying but in the past, there was a terrorist, Richard Reid who used a shoe bomb to try to bring down a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)
THAT is why you remove your shoes..not because we thought it would be fun to watch everyone bend over and b/c we like the smell or for any other stupid reason you guys think we do things..it is for a LEGITIMATE reason. You think we just make stuff up because it's time for a change of scenery or something. NO, we do things for some reason or another that we see fit.
Another example would be the liquids. The "reason" for this procedure is also legitimate. Here is why
http://www.efilmgroup.com/Liquid-Chemical-Explosives-What-You-Never-Wanted-to-Know.html
So, those of you complaining, please just condsider that we DO do things for a reason.
July 14, 2008 6:10 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
July 14, 2008 6:26 PM
Wow, what a lot of hostility. Get off your computers and go outside. Play with your children, walk your dog or have a beverage with your significant other. Some of you have real anger management problems, please stop hating. Life is too short to complain all the time.
July 14, 2008 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"What's the matter Dunstan you can't deal with facts. Personnally I don't care if you find them compelling or not, they are still facts."
Ok, I'll play your silly game...
Facts can be debated, twisted, and contested- that is what makes for lively dialog. One man's fact is another man's fantasy, or fiction. It is the truth that is etched in stone.
"Are you going to answer the questions or are you going to ignore them in hopes that they will go away?"
Hardly- Chicken Little...
"Sounds like something I read on these blogs."
More carefully documented research on your part? I suggest you follow the advice you are handing out, and act less like a troll. We might wring some reasonable dialog from you yet.
July 14, 2008 6:41 PM
"I'm curious... It's a little known fact that most public airplanes ship human remains in the cargo hold. What are the TSA's provisions for ensuring that the human remains being shipped are actually the remains of a deceased human and not a living terrorist or explosive device?"
On a trip to Iceland, my friend' teacher died.
I asked the airline rep (not to be morbid, but )how do you get the body back? She got a real pained look in her face and said that it isn't easy. To cut her explaination short, the airline takes care of it. It may be done as cargo and,as some of us know, TSA doesn't 100% secreen that yet.
TSO-Joe
July 14, 2008 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Why haven't you posted any information on the Denver TSO recently arrested on suspicion of soliciting for underage sex? Why didn't any of the Denver BDOs discover this? Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?
I don't know about you but I cannot account for anyone around me. If BDO skills could only identify bad guys we would put the news out of business. Just read the papers or watch the news, individuals from all walks of life are committing unthinkable crimes.I just hope that this brings awareness that it could indeed be anyone.
July 14, 2008 8:04 PM
I have a question for you- which item is inherently less safe- (1)a 12 ounce bottle of a colorless, tasteless liquid,
(2) a fully fueled, privately flown Gulfstream?
July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
Depends on your definition of dangerous. If you're talking about the ability to kill 100+ people, destroy a $30M+ asset, and cause some undetermined amount of damage on the ground, then the former.
A Gulfstream weighs in at around 50,000 pounds, max take-off weight. Of that, maybe 30,000 pounds is fuel, a good chunk for the aircraft itself, leaving enough useful load for the pax and crew (say, 12 total.) That would translate to about 3000# useful load. OK, drop 10 pax and keep the pilots, we're talking about being able to pack it with 2500# of explosive. I'm pretty sure more than that was used in '93 to try to take down the WTC, and placed in a far better and more precise location than you could get an airplane. Jet-A is not really all that explosive, so don't count on it magnifying the damage. Essentially, we're talking about a pretty small impact crater - minimal collateral damage.
I'm still more concerned about a liquid explosive than any GA threat. The aircraft in question just don't pack enough of a wallop to be able to do much damage.
July 14, 2008 9:11 PM
I don't know about you but I cannot account for anyone around me. If BDO skills could only identify bad guys we would put the news out of business. Just read the papers or watch the news, individuals from all walks of life are committing unthinkable crimes.I just hope that this brings awareness that it could indeed be anyone.
So, if I understand you, then your ability to recognize someone who has criminal intent is limited. So a person who had an argument with their spouse that morning, may be interpreted by a BDO as being a threat. So you add insult to injury by dragging that individual over for 'processing' through the security theater while real felons work around you.
Beautiful. A true sociopath could waltz right on by (think Green River killer) while an innocent citizen gets the third degree from TSA.
Let's say that TSA goes back to the original charter and begin doing a better job of detecting weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices. Time for the curtain call on last act of security theater.
July 14, 2008 10:20 PM
SDFTSO said...
Wow, what a lot of hostility. Get off your computers and go outside. Play with your children, walk your dog or have a beverage with your significant other. Some of you have real anger management problems, please stop hating. Life is too short to complain all the time.
I will make you a deal, get the TSA to stop breaking the law (Title 49 1540.5), stop lying (see above statute), stop chipping away at my God given rights (see Gilmore vs. Gonzalez), stop treating innocent people like criminals (see anybody on the watch list) and then I can take a break and go play with the kids.
Right now I must do my responsibility as a parent and a citizen to make sure they do not grow up and inherit a fascist government.
Before you have a knee jerk reaction to the word "fascist", I suggest you look up the word "fascism" to see if that is the road we a heading down.
July 15, 2008 4:55 AM
I asked:
I have a question for you- which item is inherently less safe- (1)a 12 ounce bottle of a colorless, tasteless liquid,
(2) a fully fueled, privately flown Gulfstream?
July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
one anonymous person politely answered:
"Depends on your definition of dangerous. If you're talking about the ability to kill 100+ people, destroy a $30M+ asset, and cause some undetermined amount of damage on the ground, then the former.
A Gulfstream weighs in at around 50,000 pounds, max take-off weight. Of that, maybe 30,000 pounds is fuel, a good chunk for the aircraft itself, leaving enough useful load for the pax and crew (say, 12 total.) That would translate to about 3000# useful load. OK, drop 10 pax and keep the pilots, we're talking about being able to pack it with 2500# of explosive. I'm pretty sure more than that was used in '93 to try to take down the WTC, and placed in a far better and more precise location than you could get an airplane. Jet-A is not really all that explosive, so don't count on it magnifying the damage. Essentially, we're talking about a pretty small impact crater - minimal collateral damage.
I'm still more concerned about a liquid explosive than any GA threat. The aircraft in question just don't pack enough of a wallop to be able to do much damage."
Hmm,your answer, in summation:
12 oz of colorless, tasteless liquid is more dangerous in your opinion than 2500 pounds of explosives loaded into an aircraft similar in size to a military fighter.
Anyone else like to venture an opinion?
July 15, 2008 6:48 AM
Trollkiller said...
Before you have a knee jerk reaction to the word "fascist", I suggest you look up the word "fascism" to see if that is the road we a heading down.
I'd argue that we're not heading down that road because we're already there. IMHO, the definition already fits.
July 15, 2008 9:55 AM
Trollkiller wrote:
"Right now I must do my responsibility as a parent and a citizen to make sure they do not grow up and inherit a fascist government.
"Before you have a knee jerk reaction to the word "fascist", I suggest you look up the word "fascism" to see if that is the road we a heading down."
Wintermute wrote:
"I'd argue that we're not heading down that road because we're already there. IMHO, the definition already fits."
see also: 14 Points of fascism: The warning signs
quoting that page (there, you'll find links to specific examples of each of these points):
"In his original article, "Fascism Anyone?", Laurence Britt (interview) compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. This page is a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism. Further analysis of American Fascism done by the POAC can be read here.
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
"2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
"3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
"4. Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
"5. Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
"6. Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
"7. Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
"9. Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
"10. Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
"11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
"12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
"13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
"14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."
July 15, 2008 11:10 AM
Dunstan said...
Anonymous said...
"What's the matter Dunstan you can't deal with facts. Personnally I don't care if you find them compelling or not, they are still facts."
Ok, I'll play your silly game...
Facts can be debated, twisted, and contested- that is what makes for lively dialog. One man's fact is another man's fantasy, or fiction. It is the truth that is etched in stone.
"Are you going to answer the questions or are you going to ignore them in hopes that they will go away?"
Hardly- Chicken Little...
"Sounds like something I read on these blogs."
More carefully documented research on your part? I suggest you follow the advice you are handing out, and act less like a troll. We might wring some reasonable dialog from you yet.
Wow, now we resort to name calling. Is that the reasonable dialog of which you speak.
There is nothing wrong with my research abilities because they are grounded in facts, not hyperbole or fantasy. Just because they do not fit within your own narrow field of view dose not make them false.
I have a question for you, have you actually researched the shoe and liquid explosive threats?
That was a rhetorical question if you haven't surmised because of your answers to my previous posts have been elusive at best, therefore I will make the assumption that you never really did research the threats and are just answering to fit your already much displayed biases.
Please do some research and answer my questions, much like you demand of the TSA.
I do look forward to your reply.
Nuff Ced
July 15, 2008 11:33 AM
Kellymae 81 said: Another example would be the liquids. The "reason" for this procedure is also legitimate. Here is why
http://www.efilmgroup.com/Liquid-Chemical-Explosives-What-You-Never-Wanted-to-Know.html
So, those of you complaining, please just condsider that we DO do things for a reason.
July 14, 2008 6:10 PM
The reason for the liquid rule is a fallacy. Even the link you cite does not support the ban on liquids.
Here is just one example from your link: "I seriously doubt that any of these compounds could actually be successfully synthesized on an aircraft. The concentrated acids required, the time and temperature control involved, make that scenario highly unlikely."
And why haven't we heard about the changes to the liquid rule that went into effect over a week ago?
Why is it such a big secret?
July 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Wintermute said...
Do you know what non sequitur means? It is latin for does not follow. It's not that we don't get the answer. It's that the answer does not follow the question that was actually asked. I can't tell if the TSA blog team and their apologists genuinely do not understand what is being asked, or if they are deliberately giving non-answers in an attempt to appease the masses without really answering a thing.
One example quickly springs to mind:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: We think it's important.
--
Wintermute,
First off, no points for condescending to the poster. Not everyone has the benefit of a classical (or even quality) education, therefore the majority of readers won't get the Latin reference.
Second, to answer your question - not TSA's official position, but a common-sense answer from one little TSO:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: Someone with a known propensity toward advocating terrorist activities, who has associations with terrorists, etc., is probably someone who should be looked at more closely. Someone with a history of terrorist acts (and granted, that's a very small slice of the population) is probably someone who shouldn't get on an airplane. Kind of like how someone with a propensity toward child molestation (i.e., exposes himself to children, possesses kiddie porn) might not be someone who should be coaching kids' soccer or Little League. As a child molester wants access to kids, so does a terrorist or sympathizer want access to high-value targets.
I do hope that helps.
July 15, 2008 11:50 AM
Re: the comments about the rise of fascism here in the US.
In the immortal words of Walt Kelly;
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Sad that Preston Bush never got to see his dream becoming reality.
,>)
July 15, 2008 12:05 PM
Hmm,your answer, in summation:
12 oz of colorless, tasteless liquid is more dangerous in your opinion than 2500 pounds of explosives loaded into an aircraft similar in size to a military fighter.
Anyone else like to venture an opinion?
Yes, that's my opinion. 1 pound of explosive precisely placed on an aircraft could be far more damaging; what we're talking about is more of a "shock and awe" (as much as I hate that phrase) effect than anything else.
GA aircraft, and the different way they are treated, is a straw man, in my opinion. The mandate, and threat, still remain on the much larger, much more visible and visceral target of an airliner.
And, having investigated the crash of a "fighter-sized" aircraft, I can tell you that they do surprising little damage on the ground. The greater the angle of arrival, the more contained they remain.
July 15, 2008 12:51 PM
The reason you arent getting a response to your questions is
1) TSA owes no one any explanation for any decision, if u dont like it...drive
2)The TSA doesnt check this message board and reply to responses...no one gets paid to do that. If you want an answer as bad as you say you do, contact the TSA via this new invention called the telephone.
July 15, 2008 2:38 PM
"Hey, self proclaimed genius;
I have a question for you- which item is inherently less safe- (1)a 12 ounce bottle of a colorless, tasteless liquid,
(2) a fully fueled, privately flown Gulfstream?"
Well we know who isn't a genius, coming up with these asanine come backs. Who cares which is "less safe". Neither one of them should be on a plane. Whats your point.
I await your non-inteligent answer.
It honestly amazes me how uneducated and pointless the comments are on these pages. The reason you people do not get the answers you are looking for is because the people with something better to do, who answer these questions don't want to waist their time with this crap.
Give some educated questions and I am sure that they will be happy to answer.
July 15, 2008 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...
"Why haven't you posted any information on the Denver TSO recently arrested on suspicion of soliciting for underage sex? Why didn't any of the Denver BDOs discover this? Why didn't the pre-employment screeners detect this?"
I see another genius.
How would a BDO know what a fellow officer is doing on their off time?
Do you even know what the job of a BDO is? You must not.
Think before you write.
Not too sure what you mean by pre-employment screeners. If you mean the people that interviewed him, I don't think he would have told them about it in the interview. If you mean the background check, it is kinda hard to find something in someones background if they are going to do it in their future.
July 15, 2008 3:00 PM
I say that TSA has the right to not be the most pleasant people. A large amount of the people that come through the checkpoint have such bad attitudes and treat the TSA so badly, but then they demand respect.
WWWWAAAAAA!
July 15, 2008 3:03 PM
"What is the difference between someone who declines to show ID and someone who lost their ID, if both are willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations?"
Because not wanting to show your ID is suspect behavior. There is no reason to not show it unless you have something to hide.
Or unless you are like most of the people on this page who would do it just to prove your BIG BOY POINT.
July 15, 2008 3:06 PM
I had posted in the 2nd ID blog that I was taking an upcoming trip and would comment on how it went, so here is my report.
Went through security at IAD late morning on 7/5. ID checker was very polite verified my passport against the boarding pass, made no isable attempt to memorize anything, unlessthe TSA has some sort of special camera watching everything a the station. Less than 30 seconds at this station. Moved onto the meat of it.
Person in front of me made about 5 attempts to go through the metal detector. TSA suggested "putting him in the pen" (sort of unprofessional statement I thought), but made it through on that attempt. Nothing changed on the person but the detector didn't alarm so the TSA's were happy. There should probably be a limit on the number of times a person can try t avoid holdng up the line.
I on the other hand was prepared, cleared easily and hand my bags and such in less han 45 seconds and was on my way.
The checkpoint was reasonable calm, no yelling from the TSA's his time. Things went smoothly.
Return trip on 7/12 began at SNA in the early morning. This time was a little different, ID checker seemed to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed and was visibly not happy (I have the first name if anyone at the TSA is interested), sharply motioning at people etc. This TSA checked, rechecked and checked some more my paperwork (the same paperwork as at IAD) finally letting me move on, time about 2 minutes (or so it seemed). Moved to the meat of the screening.
Hold up of some sort on the X-ray, from people in front of me, I once again cleared quickly, went on about my way. Once again no yelling was observed at the checkpoint.
I did hear announcement for people who left stuff at the checkpoint to come back for it, some by name.
Overall impression: No big deal, some seem to be overboard with their checking. I will fly again.
I did note a number of weapons in the "sterile" area (firearms). If you are going to call it a "Sterile" area it should be just that, sterile, no weapons period.
July 15, 2008 5:39 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Because not wanting to show your ID is suspect behavior. There is no reason to not show it unless you have something to hide.
Or unless you are like most of the people on this page who would do it just to prove your BIG BOY POINT."
So expecting the government to abide by the law and Consitution is just trying to make a "big boy point"? Hogwash.
I guess if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind the police coming in and tossing your house on a regular basis to look for drugs, kiddie porn, illegal weapons and so forth. Or getting hassled and frisked for the same simply for walking down the street. After all, you have nothing to hide. You wouldn't feel harassed, would you? If you don't submit to those, you must have something to hide and are a threat.
Funny thing is, our Founding Fathers didn't buy that. They thought the above was unreasonable and cemented guarantees in the Consitution to protect us from things like that. You know ... that little thing called the Fourth Amendment?
The fact of the matter is, that barring a warrant issued on probable cause (again, that pesky Fourth Amendment) or probable cause right then (like a kid screaming, seeing a meth lab in your living room while at the door, etc), the government has no business searching your house. Honestly, it's none of their business and just because I assert those rights doesn't mean I'm suspicious. Though I guess in America today, not being a sheep is suspect anymore.
You really need to read Prof. Daniel Solove's essay "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" to see why your argument is intellectually bankrupt.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It's a sad day in America to see that asserting ones rights makes one suspect. God help us all.
Robert
July 15, 2008 6:31 PM
Quote from Anonymous: I see another genius.
How would a BDO know what a fellow officer is doing on their off time?
Do you even know what the job of a BDO is? You must not.
Think before you write.
Actually, I think I see another genius here.
Insider threats are by and large a much larger threat than posed by outsiders. Why? People are so worried about outside threats that they don't look inside. It gives an insider more opportunity to work, especially considering the fact that the insider knows the vulnerabilities and exploits to the system.
You know, TSO's who've been arrested for bringing guns to work, smuggling, etc. That sort of thing?
If you're NOT looking inside your ranks, and that includes SPOTting, you're seriously ignoring a large threat.
Then again, TSA ignoring large threats in favor of small ones with high visibility is nothing new.
Or are you just meaning to say that TSA trusts its employees implicitly and that SPOTniks are there mainly to harass people who don't "look" right?
"Not too sure what you mean by pre-employment screeners. If you mean the people that interviewed him, I don't think he would have told them about it in the interview."
Gee, you think? Thank you Captain Obvious.
"If you mean the background check, it is kinda hard to find something in someones background if they are going to do it in their future."
Again, which begs the question: why didn't a SPOTnik pick up on this? Clearly, with the "high" training they receive, surely they should have seen something wasn't right with the guy. You know that creepy feeling? It's not like the guy woke up one day and decided "hey I'm going to be a pedophile."
If you can't pick out people like this in your own ranks, how can we expect you to find a "bad guy®"? You're either turning a blind eye to insider threats or using the excuse "it's not our job" as justification for ignoring it. Neither flies.
Robert
July 15, 2008 6:46 PM
Quote from Anonymous:"Well we know who isn't a genius, coming up with these asanine come backs. Who cares which is "less safe". Neither one of them should be on a plane. Whats your point.
I await your non-inteligent answer.
It honestly amazes me how uneducated and pointless the comments are on these pages. The reason you people do not get the answers you are looking for is because the people with something better to do, who answer these questions don't want to waist their time with this crap.
Give some educated questions and I am sure that they will be happy to answer."
And THIS is your example of an educated answer? Please. You say they both shouldn't be on a plane and that's it. Then you rip on others. It's especially bad form when ripping on someone's education level that you don't even use proper spelling.
Physician, heal thyself.
People ask good questions. They're not getting answered. Of course people are getting upset.
I care about safety. One of them is arguably much less safe than the other. A bottle isn't going to bring down a plane, unless you believe Hollywood fiction (as was debunked by a URI Prof. Jimmy Oxley, a chemistry professor specializing in explosives).
If TSA REALLY cared about safety and thought liquids were a threat, there wouldn't be garbage cans full of liquids sitting at checkpoints nor would they nonchallantly be thrown into a garbage can. After all, these liquid explosives would be highly unstable and should detonate on impact. Just the manner that TSA handles such liquids shows that the liquid carnival is a farce.
Robert
July 15, 2008 6:52 PM
This is the kind of good news story the media should bring home to the public more often.
July 15, 2008 7:59 PM
Exhack-tsa/las writes:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: Someone with a known propensity toward advocating terrorist activities, who has associations with terrorists, etc., is probably someone who should be looked at more closely. Someone with a history of terrorist acts (and granted, that's a very small slice of the population) is probably someone who shouldn't get on an airplane.
TSA screening never achieves that goal. The ID presented at a checkpoint is never compared to the selectee/no-fly lists; it is compared to an unauthenticated boarding pass. If the boarding pass is genuine, the boarding pass was compared to the selectee/no-fly lists, and you get the result you want. But how do you know the boarding pass is genuine?
July 15, 2008 8:12 PM
ihopeitgoeswell wrote:
TSA suggested "putting him in the pen" (sort of unprofessional statement I thought)
We call ours "The Fishbowl" here. :D
There should probably be a limit on the number of times a person can try to avoid holdng up the line.
Another change to our operating procedures that didn't get a press release. It went from two attempts, to anyone taking as many trips through the WTMD as they need to clear, providing that they're trying to divest items.
IAHFlyer wrote:
And why haven't we heard about the changes to the liquid rule that went into effect over a week ago?
Why is it such a big secret?
For the same reason that the changes to the ID verification process wasn't heard about until I laid everything out.
By and large, TSA does not, for the most part, give a press release for every revision and change to the SOP that they make. Life would be a lot simpler if they did, but they don't.
Ergo, liquids rule was relaxed just a teensy bit (and I've already explained how the new methodology works, so I'm not going to get into it again) and the TDC procedures were relaxed just a teensy bit (again, which I've already spelled out), and no official statement was made about it.
Kind of like how, late last year, suddenly CPAP machines had to come out of their cases and be ETD'd, and nobody knew about it until they just showed up at the airport one day because there wasn't a press release to cover it.
CBGB, I haven't forgotten you and the reply I promised you about such procedural differences between public statements and actual policy as the result of SOP revisions and changes. I just haven't gotten around to doing it yet. My wife's grandmother died Saturday night, and she's been a wreck.
July 15, 2008 9:29 PM
"GA aircraft, and the different way they are treated, is a straw man, in my opinion. The mandate, and threat, still remain on the much larger, much more visible and visceral target of an airliner.
And, having investigated the crash of a "fighter-sized" aircraft, I can tell you that they do surprising little damage on the ground. The greater the angle of arrival, the more contained they remain."
I appreciate your candor, and your viewpoint. My mother died in a light plane crash in the early 70's, so perhaps you can see a bit of my perspective, and forgive my curiosity.
July 15, 2008 9:57 PM
The highly dismissive anonymous poster said:
"Well we know who isn't a genius, coming up with these asanine come backs."
Yup. guilty as charged, I never did test out quite that high. I certainly have met people more intelligent than I am, or maybe just more eccentric, or the fabulous and entertaining combination of both. It doesn't make ME insecure, however, just makes life more enjoyable.
"Who cares which is "less safe". Neither one of them should be on a plane. Whats your point."
Curiosity... Does TSA make you feel less safe?
"I await your non-inteligent answer."
Ok, I'll play your silly game, 42 is my cribbed, non intelligent answer.
"It honestly amazes me how uneducated and pointless the comments are on these pages. The reason you people do not get the answers you are looking for is because the people with something better to do, who answer these questions don't want to waist their time with this crap."
Are you absolutely sure that the above statement was not some brief, shallow insight into your own life?
"Give some educated questions and I am sure that they will be happy to answer."
You, of course, know better than I do, about everything, right?
July 15, 2008 10:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
not wanting to show your ID is suspect behavior. There is no reason to not show it unless you have something to hide.
Big words from someone who's posting anonymously. Why don't you show us your ID? After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
July 15, 2008 11:12 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
July 16, 2008 9:02 AM
ExHack-TSA/LAS said...
Wintermute,
First off, no points for condescending to the poster. Not everyone has the benefit of a classical (or even quality) education, therefore the majority of readers won't get the Latin reference.
I wasn't being condescending. I was explaining that the blog team did not, in fact, answer the questions as asked. I apologize to anyone who thinks I was condescending to them. It was not intentional.
Second, to answer your question - not TSA's official position, but a common-sense answer from one little TSO:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: Someone with a known propensity toward advocating terrorist activities, who has associations with terrorists, etc., is probably someone who should be looked at more closely. Someone with a history of terrorist acts (and granted, that's a very small slice of the population) is probably someone who shouldn't get on an airplane. Kind of like how someone with a propensity toward child molestation (i.e., exposes himself to children, possesses kiddie porn) might not be someone who should be coaching kids' soccer or Little League. As a child molester wants access to kids, so does a terrorist or sympathizer want access to high-value targets.
I do hope that helps.
Thank you for your answer. However, I have two issues. First, it's again not official word from the TSA blog team. I appreciate it when the TSOs attempt to genuinely help, but an official answer might go a long way.
Second, the argument itself seems a bit flawed. If a person has a history of terrorism, then why aren't they in jail? Not to mention that the word "terrorism" itself is watered down with too many bad laws. Does someone who has been charged with "terroristic threats" have a history of terrorism? That charge might be something as simple as making harassing phone calls (and would have been charged as "harassment" prior to the paranoia following 9/11). Comparing that person to a child molester is absurd.
July 16, 2008 9:14 AM
Robert Johnson said ...
"....The fact of the matter is, that barring a warrant issued on probable cause (again, that pesky Fourth Amendment) or probable cause right then (like a kid screaming, seeing a meth lab in your living room while at the door, etc), the government has no business searching your house. Honestly, it's none of their business and just because I assert those rights doesn't mean I'm suspicious. Though I guess in America today, not being a sheep is suspect anymore."
--
Wrong argument in the wrong place.
The right to be secure in your person and your home from seizures dates past the Constitution back to English common law, in which a man's home was presumed secure from capricious government searches and interference (hence the cliche, "a man's home is his castle.") This is the basis of your argument.
Unfortunately for your argument, airports are a) public places, not private homes or vehicles; b) usually government property owned by the local airport authority; c) security checkpoints are Federal reservations under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government. In addition, a) civil aircraft are public conveyances, b) operated by private businesses (the aircraft operators) who have given the Federal government the mission of making their $100 million Boeings and Airbuses secure from terrorist attacks. What that adds up to is that you do not have an expectation of privacy at the airport. Even if you did have some expectation of privacy, it would be outweighed by the right of the other 200-300 pax on your flight to be safe from attack.
Nice straw man argument, but we don't need any scarecrows at the checkpoint. Thanks for playing.
July 16, 2008 9:23 AM
HSVTSO Dean said...
My wife's grandmother died Saturday night, and she's been a wreck.
Sorry to hear, Dean. Sometimes real life has to take precedence, even for a geek. Any answers you've promised can wait.
July 16, 2008 10:27 AM
Just an observation!
Jim Huggins wrote:
Big words from someone who's posting anonymously. Why don't you show us your ID? After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
Given that this is the Internet, posting a scan of someone's personal ID for all the world to see might qualify as A Very Bad Thing™.
It's a good statement for the rhetorical fact of the argument, but I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near actually doing this for fear that some kid in Russia would get the wheels rolling on identity theft.
I, personally, wouldn't have anything to hide (I call myself responsible, my wife calls me boring :D), though I would very much like to protect my checking account.
July 16, 2008 10:59 AM
Jim Huggins said...
Exhack-tsa/las writes:
Q: How does knowing someone's identity make us any safer?
A: Someone with a known propensity toward advocating terrorist activities, who has associations with terrorists, etc., is probably someone who should be looked at more closely. Someone with a history of terrorist acts (and granted, that's a very small slice of the population) is probably someone who shouldn't get on an airplane.
TSA screening never achieves that goal. The ID presented at a checkpoint is never compared to the selectee/no-fly lists; it is compared to an unauthenticated boarding pass. If the boarding pass is genuine, the boarding pass was compared to the selectee/no-fly lists, and you get the result you want. But how do you know the boarding pass is genuine?
--
Jim,
We are in agreement on both of your specific issues, especially in re: unauthenticated boarding passes.
In a less imperfect world, boarding passes would contain security feature/s (i.e., a unique bar code, uploaded constantly in realtime, to a database shared by both TSA and the aircraft operators. We could scan those boarding passes at TDC.
As far as the issue of the ID not being run through databases: when a ticket is purchased, the purchaser/ticket holder's name is (or should be) run through the appropriate databases. If boarding passes were authenticable, the person holding the boarding pass would have already been cleared at the time of ticket purchase. Then the ID check would simply be verifying that a person who has been vetted to fly (or fly w/o additional screening), would actually be the person holding the ticket. It would make the ID checks more purposeful. I'm not an apologist for the shortfalls in our procedures, and I hope that those procedures evolve toward more perfect security.
July 16, 2008 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...
I say that TSA has the right to not be the most pleasant people. A large amount of the people that come through the checkpoint have such bad attitudes and treat the TSA so badly, but then they demand respect.
WWWWAAAAAA!
July 15, 2008 3:03 PM
I take it that your TSA.
If you display the attitude that comes accros here then I understand if you are treated without respect.
Putting on a uniform does not earn respect. Respect is earned by actions. To many TSA types have harmed the publics opinion of the TSA and the lack of respect given is an indication of the publics confidence of TSA workers.
You want to be treated well, earn it!
July 16, 2008 12:02 PM
I wrote, in replying to an anonymous correspondent:
Big words from someone who's posting anonymously. Why don't you show us your ID? After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
HSV-TSO Dean wrote in reply:
Given that this is the Internet, posting a scan of someone's personal ID for all the world to see might qualify as A Very Bad Thing™. It's a good statement for the rhetorical fact of the argument, but I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near actually doing this for fear that some kid in Russia would get the wheels rolling on identity theft.
Which goes toward the original point of my snarky comment. Showing identity documents to anyone who demands them has effects that reach beyond an individual presentation of an ID on a checkpoint.
Saying "what do you have to hide", as the original anonymous poster did, is disingenuous at best. We all have information about ourselves that we want to hide ... our social security numbers, our bank PINs, our online passwords, and so on. We share that information because we must in order to conduct certain transactions ... but it is important that we start thinking as a society about how little information we can collect for such purposes, rather than how much.
This is directed at my original respondent, not Dean, of course.
(Wow! I got to interact with the legendary Dean!)
July 16, 2008 12:40 PM
Quote from exhack-tsa/las: "Wrong argument in the wrong place.
The right to be secure in your person and your home from seizures dates past the Constitution back to English common law, in which a man's home was presumed secure from capricious government searches and interference (hence the cliche, "a man's home is his castle.") This is the basis of your argument.
I think you took my argument out of context. My point was that simply refusing to allow inspection (searching a house, person, asking for ID) implies that you have something to hide. I elaborated on that point. So no strawman.
Unfortunately for your argument, airports are a) public places, not private homes or vehicles; b) usually government property owned by the local airport authority; c) security checkpoints are Federal reservations under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government. In addition, a) civil aircraft are public conveyances, b) operated by private businesses (the aircraft operators) who have given the Federal government the mission of making their $100 million Boeings and Airbuses secure from terrorist attacks. What that adds up to is that you do not have an expectation of privacy at the airport. Even if you did have some expectation of privacy, it would be outweighed by the right of the other 200-300 pax on your flight to be safe from attack.
I think you misunderstand the expectation of privacy. I think you took my points way out of context and addressed something I didn't even address.
I don't have an expectation of privacy when it comes to someone taking my picture in a public place of me doing something. I have an expectation of privacy with regards to other things, such as my papers, computer documents, wallet, identity. I have an expectation of privacy in a toilet stall. Just my being in a public place or on government property does not give the a government actor the right to search. Saying I have no expectation of privacy is ludicrious. Reduced expectation, yes. No expectation, no.
Just because TSA butts in, says it needs something doesn't make it right or legal. It still can't even give a legal justification to the questions posed here after 3 weeks with regards to the legality of its requirements.
TSA wasn't "given" the mission to "secure" aviation by the airlines. It was forcefully assumed by the government. Of course, the airlines were more than happy for the government to take that over because that was money they didn't have to spend on security. And of course, the airlines were more than happy TSA decided to enforce its revenue protection policies by checking ID's ... they don't have to pay contractors for that anymore.
How are planes public conveyances operated by private entities? This implies that the government gives the airlines the planes that they're just allowed to operate. I'd really like to see that backed up. Last I checked, the airlines either owned or leased their planes, not the government.
Nice straw man argument, but we don't need any scarecrows at the checkpoint. Thanks for playing.
I look forward to the day when TSA stops throwing up strawmen to justify its "security" practices. When TSA actually provides some real security, then we can talk ok?
Robert
July 16, 2008 12:43 PM
"Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
I say that TSA has the right to not be the most pleasant people. A large amount of the people that come through the checkpoint have such bad attitudes and treat the TSA so badly, but then they demand respect.
WWWWAAAAAA!"
People are going to treat you with the respect that you deserve. It is very much a two way street. As a TSO, you have to respect your own uniform, your mission, know your rules, and be a living example of that professional demeanor. When other people see that, you will get their respect, and deserve their respect. As the saying goes, "you reap what you sow".
July 16, 2008 12:57 PM
Wintermute said ...
Thank you for your answer. However, I have two issues. First, it's again not official word from the TSA blog team. I appreciate it when the TSOs attempt to genuinely help, but an official answer might go a long way.
Second, the argument itself seems a bit flawed. If a person has a history of terrorism, then why aren't they in jail? Not to mention that the word "terrorism" itself is watered down with too many bad laws. Does someone who has been charged with "terroristic threats" have a history of terrorism? That charge might be something as simple as making harassing phone calls (and would have been charged as "harassment" prior to the paranoia following 9/11). Comparing that person to a child molester is absurd.
--
Wintermute,
I can see your viewpoint on the ID check issue, and (with respect) I think there are perhaps some scenarios you haven't considered. There are any number of reasons why a person with a history of terror, or aiding/abetting terrorism, wouldn't be in jail. i.e, someone from our history of home-grown terrorists (Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation, Aryan Nations, etc.) who may have served a prison sentence and been paroled. You may also have a person who has not actually engaged in terrorism, but aids/abets in ways that hover close to the lines of legality (i.e., operates one of the so-called "charities" that funnel money to Al-Qaeda.) These are the ones that immediately come to mind. Bottom line, bearing my oath to the Nation in mind, those aren't the kind of people I'd like to let into the secure area, at least not without some additional scrutiny.
Concur re: your point about the inflation of the definitions of "terror." I find myself in the odd position of a civil libertarian doing the job of Federal security, so we see eye to eye on that one. i.e., if the police get called into a quote unquote domestic disturbance at my home, and they wrongly arrest me on domestic-violence charges, my right to keep and bear arms is forfeit in some states and municipalities. The overall inflation of what is a real public menace, and what is not - and the sensationalist way legislation is driven on that sort of thing - is a real problem outside the scope of this blog.
Lastly - fair enough and no foul in re: the "Latin" issue. Just do remember that education is not what it used to be, if it ever was.
July 16, 2008 5:20 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
Which goes toward the original point of my snarky comment. Showing identity documents to anyone who demands them has effects that reach beyond an individual presentation of an ID on a checkpoint.
True. Especially when said person has the capability and time to copy the sensitive information (I've heard more than a few horror stories about people giving waiters/tresses their credit card for them to go process, and they copy all the information down for their own, ah, personal use later).
Well. Unless they have an eidetic memory, of course, then you're just screwed if they even so much as glance at it. :)
This is directed at my original respondent, not Dean, of course.
-salute-
(Wow! I got to interact with the legendary Dean!)
I'm not legendary~ :P I'm just a guy in a white shirt that cares about his fellow citizens, and thinks some of their legitimate questions should get answers, so I answer the ones that's within my capability to do so. That's all.
And, eventually, when I get the energy to do so, I'm going to sit down for the three hours or so it'd take to put up the response I promised CBGB. Hoy.
July 16, 2008 11:26 PM
"Exhack-tsa/las" wrote:
"In a less imperfect world, boarding passes would contain security feature/s (i.e., a unique bar code, uploaded constantly in realtime, to a database shared by both TSA and the aircraft operators. We could scan those boarding passes at TDC."
As I have previously written,
On the Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Office - Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) page is:
"Boarding Pass Scanning System, November 29, 2007 (PDF, 7 Pages – 163KB) The Boarding Pass Scanning System (BPSS) is a process and technology that validates the authenticity of the boarding pass at the TSA security checkpoint using 2-dimensional (2D) bar code readers and encryption techniques. The BPSS will display machine readable data from the boarding pass for confirmation against the human readable portions of the boarding pass to verify that the boarding pass is legitimate and has not been tampered with. Once confirmed, the displayed data will be deleted from the BPSS."
But even if we can rely upon the boarding pass, we'll still be relying upon government blacklists to restrict our freedom.
Quoting John Gilmore:
Q. Isn't an ID check needed to stop known terrorists from flying?
If we knew who the terrorists were, we could just arrest them all, rather than stopping them when they try to fly. So what do you mean by "a known terrorist"? A previously convicted hijacker? A card-carrying member of Al-Queda? A Green Party member, who seeks to change our established form of government? Someone on probation, convicted of non-violent civil disobedience for protesting the Star Wars program at Vandenberg Air Force Base? A member of Earth First!?
There is good reason to believe that any list of "known terrorists" contains "suspected" terrorists, not actual terrorists, and is full of errors besides. Particularly when the list is secret and neither the press nor the public can examine it for errors or political biases.
"Johnnie Thomas" was on the watch list because a 28-year-old "FBI Most Wanted" man, Christian Michael Longo, used that name as an alias. But Longo was arrested two days after joining the "Most Wanted" list for murdering his family. After he had been in custody for months, 70-year-old black grandma "Johnnie Thomas" gets stopped every time she tries to fly. Her story is in the May 2002 issue of New Yorker magazine. It's not clear why an ordinary criminal like Longo was on the list in the first place -- nor why he wasn't removed from the list when he was captured two days later. What is clear is that this secret watch-list is poorly controlled and ripe for abuse. And, of course, there is no guarantee that an actual terrorist would be carrying their real ID.
There are many ways to deter terrorism, but checking IDs against a watch list is not one of them. It is an exercise in futility that provides a false sense of security.
Q. So then how should we figure out who is a terrorist?
It's a good question, that goes to the heart of the post-9/11 civil liberties issues.
Who is a terrorist? Any IRA member from the last twenty years? A member of the Irgun (led by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin)? Nelson Mandela, imprisoned for sabotage for 27 years by the South African government? A WTO protester? The US Government killed more Afghani civilians in the last year than the number of US people killed on 9/11; does that make US soldiers terrorists? Israel and Palestine both claim that the other is terrorist. So do India and Pakistan. So do leftists and rightists in Colombia.
Ultimately the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is a political one. Our freedom to travel should not depend on a politician's decision about whether they agree with our aims or not. Every "anti-terrorist" measure restricts people based on their politics, not just based on whether they use violence. Violence was already illegal.
In other words, any list of "terrorists" will inevitably contain many individuals that have never committed a terrorist act, and not contain many individuals that have actually committed a terrorist act.
Didn't we Americans learn long ago that restriction of rights and liberties based on a secret blacklist is bad?
July 16, 2008 11:52 PM
exhack-tsa/las said...
Wrong argument in the wrong place.
The right to be secure in your person and your home from seizures dates past the Constitution back to English common law, in which a man's home was presumed secure from capricious government searches and interference (hence the cliche, "a man's home is his castle.") This is the basis of your argument.
Unfortunately for your argument, airports are a) public places, not private homes or vehicles; b) usually government property owned by the local airport authority; c) security checkpoints are Federal reservations under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government. In addition, a) civil aircraft are public conveyances, b) operated by private businesses (the aircraft operators) who have given the Federal government the mission of making their $100 million Boeings and Airbuses secure from terrorist attacks. What that adds up to is that you do not have an expectation of privacy at the airport. Even if you did have some expectation of privacy, it would be outweighed by the right of the other 200-300 pax on your flight to be safe from attack.
Nice straw man argument, but we don't need any scarecrows at the checkpoint. Thanks for playing.
Yee Haw we got a live one here.
Seeing how you seem to have a difficult time understand basic Constitutional arguments (do schools even teach Government anymore?) let me help you out.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note the right of the people to be secure extends past houses to persons, papers and effects. Also note there is no exception for "Federal reservations", public places, or Government owned property.
The ONLY thing that makes a search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries Constitutionally sound is the current position of the Supreme Court that the searches are REASONABLE.
The ID verification is not reasonable and is statutorily illegal as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area. (see Title 49 1540.5)
In Gilmore vs. Gonzalez the 9th circuit held that the TSA did not violate Gilmore's rights because he could opt out of an ID verification and take a REASONABLE search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries instead.
The TSA has removed the one thing that gave them victory in the Gilmore case.
Expectation of privacy is never outweighed by the rights of others.
Expectation of privacy means that you have a certain REASONABLE level of privacy for a given situation.
At the airport one has no expectation of privacy on what can be seen from a public space. That is the reason I can take your photograph and you can't say boo about it, if I do it from a public space. What I can't do is use a parabolic microphone to capture your whispered conversation, even if I do it from a public space.
You expect people to see you when you are in a public setting or can be seen from a public setting, you don't expect to be heard from 50 feet away if you are whispering.
I have an expectation of privacy when it comes to the content of my wallet (papers). The TSA is welcome to REASONABLEY search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries but has not right to READ anything in my wallet. One is reasonable, the other is not.
The right to travel freely is also an old English common law concept, in fact one so ingrained and undeniable that the framers left it out of the Constitution even though it was in the Articles of the Confederation. The 9th Circuit held up that right in Gilmore Vs. Gonzalez.
One more thing before I go, please point me to the statute that shows where the screening location is a "Federal Reservation" under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. (I hope you are right, because that will open up another can of worms and I feel like fishin')
July 17, 2008 2:40 AM
ExHack-tsa/las said...
...a bunch of stuff that doesn't need quoted verbatim...
You make a good argument. That said, I still respectfully disagree with your position (bet you didn't see that coming!) on the grounds that if you've done your job (the TSA as a whole, not you individually), then that hypothetical former Black Panther sitting beside me is harmless.
July 17, 2008 10:50 AM
Just out of sheer personal curiosity.
Laptops as... "containers?"
Comments?
EoS Team - I fully defend this particular comment on grounds that this thread has already gone rather far afield of its original topic of conversation, and therefore should no longer be held to the "off-topic" criterion. :)
July 17, 2008 9:49 PM
Quote from Trollkiller: "One more thing before I go, please point me to the statute that shows where the screening location is a "Federal Reservation" under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. (I hope you are right, because that will open up another can of worms and I feel like fishin')"
He can't be right. If it was exclusive federal jurisdiction, there'd have to be federal LEO's there and not airport or port authority PD as they wouldn't have jurisdiction.
Unless this is a case of jurisdiction when it's convenient ...
Robert
July 18, 2008 12:14 AM
Robert Johnson said...
He can't be right. If it was exclusive federal jurisdiction, there'd have to be federal LEO's there and not airport or port authority PD as they wouldn't have jurisdiction.
Unless this is a case of jurisdiction when it's convenient
There is a thing called "concurrent jurisdiction" but I think it still requires everything to go through Federal prosecution. I am still checking up on that.
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 13
July 20, 2008 9:16 PM
Dunstan said...
"Wow, now we resort to name calling. Is that the reasonable dialog of which you speak.
Seems to be part and parcel of this blog. Chicken Little is more a nick-name than name calling, it refers to a certain level of hysterical "the sky is falling" attitude- attributed to your fixation on a few events involving explosives.
"There is nothing wrong with my research abilities because they are grounded in facts, not hyperbole or fantasy. Just because they do not fit within your own narrow field of view dose not make them false."
So give me a definitive example of your well documented research, instead of just alluding to it.
"I have a question for you, have you actually researched the shoe and liquid explosive threats?"
Explosives- liquid, solid or nuclear for that matter, really isn't MY area of interest- my interest is more in the area of passenger security in their possessions, and of course their ability to travel freely.
Sorry that I don't share your fixation with explosives- you'll just have to go pester someone else about that.
"That was a rhetorical question if you haven't surmised because of your answers to my previous posts have been elusive at best, therefore I will make the assumption that you never really did research the threats and are just answering to fit your already much displayed biases."
I really don't have a personal agenda, though I am willing to "toss my hat into the ring", occasionally. If I do have biases, they have to do with professional behavior in the workplace.
"Please do some research and answer my questions, much like you demand of the TSA."
See answer above about my interests.
"I do look forward to your reply."
Have a wonderful day, I am heading to our local farmer's market with my spaniels...
July 16, 2008 9:02 AM
Quick, run away someone asked me to answer questions. I thought we were the only ones allowed to ask questions and then demand answers. Typical, I would expect no less from you. P.S. How did your trip to the farmer's market go? Did you get your spaniels a treat? Did you have to show your ID to pay for your sevices? My lab loves the homemand peanut butter treats.
Nuff Ced
July 21, 2008 11:46 AM
"And every last TSA agent, bar none, treated me like a human being. I got smiles, I got pleasant comments, and the worst TSA attitude I've had to deal with lately was one of fatigue when they were near the end of a shift. Given how tired _I_ was today, I shared their pain.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but I really appreciate TSA, less for the security itself than for the professionalism and courtesy that I see nearly every time I fly. And, come to think of it, every time I read this blog."
WOW! I am new to the blog here, but I see that not everyone on this site is vitriol and fumes! Thanks for noticing the floor grunts. Have a nice weekend and we look forward to you next week.
July 25, 2008 10:53 PM
"Shoe bomber? One duffus with a shoe bomb now leads to us removing our shoes. How about donkey bombs? How about truck bombs? TSA isn't doing anything about either donkeys or trucks."
You know.... I just.... wow, I was not aware that Donkeys could purchase airline tickets, but when one shows up at my checkpoint with ID and a valid boarding pass I will give proper screening... Oh yeah, don't even get me started on those trucks... they have to have 4 tickets just to get on the plane and they leak oil in my walk through... OMG! Are you serious? Oh uhhh BTW duffus? Come on! Check the following link for the correct spelling (that is IF you were trying to refer to "the shoe bomber" as a doofus)...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doofus
July 25, 2008 11:14 PM
Hey Sandra! "BTW - again the question is asked: How much are the bloggers paying people to post favorable/supportive comments. I seem to notice that such are all posted in sequence. Tells me you're out beating the bushes for people to say nice things about you."
They don't pay me anything to do this, you get me for FREE!!! Isn't it nice to get something for free for a change? I think TSA has some great people working for it (not the least of which is .... ME!!). I thin the mission we do is honorable, difficult and thankless. I am not very critical of upper management/HQ (as it usually is not very conducive to long term employment...), but there are problems with the way we do things. As a floor grunt, I have the unique experience of dealing with passengers on a daily basis. This gives me some insight that HQ can't really have because even if they come down and "shadow" me, I am on my best behavior, my management is on their best behavior and all the other people around us are usually on their best behavior (to include the passengers). This will give them SOME idea of what goes on, but no the real picture of the checkpoint daily. We are making some improvements.... s l o w l y, but they are being made. We are NOT going to make everyone flying happy, this is a simple fact. We ARE going to do our best to mitigate the threat that is posed against aviation EVERYDAY by people that want to do harm to all of us. Now, before I get accused of "drinking the koolaid" or "worshipping at the temple of Kip" or preaching the party line, I am in agreement with a lot of what I see posted here. There should be more transparency in the way things are done. I will say when something is wrong in my opinion. Take care and post more!
July 25, 2008 11:53 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home