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

11.04.2008

Blogger Paul's Intro

It is with great pleasure that I begin my first official blog post at the TSA. I arrived at HQ last week with aspirations common to most recent college graduates. Pumped full of “unique” ideas that could potentially change the entire world, I decided to start with the TSA. My plan was simple and straight forward. I just needed someone in a position of authority to lend me their ear.

While my “unique” ideas are certain to be called into question from time to time, as a recent college graduate, my writing will attempt to synthesize an outsider’s perspective with insider knowledge. Having monitored the ongoing debate between TSA authorities and the public, I’ve discovered that both sides are (believe it or not) in agreement more often than they realize.

Since I don’t have the frontline experience like my colleague Bob, I’ll be spending the next few weeks meeting people here at TSA, spending time at local airports, and monitoring the blogosphere to see what other folks are talking about to come up with blog topics to cover.

Since I’ve come on board, I’ve spent some time at Baltimore Washington International Airport’s Southwest Airlines’ Terminal B learning about Checkpoint Evolution [link]. Like many travelers, the first thing I noticed was a wall of holograms and a faint blue glow from the lights lining the perimeter. As I wound my way through the line, I was greeted every so often by portraits of security officers (sometimes out of uniform) with brief bios below their pictures. Clearly, the intent behind these signs is to remind us that Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) are people just like the rest of us, and dedicated to their security mission. It was interesting to see that some are veterans or former law enforcement officers.

So here’s the overarching theory: when the checkpoint environment is calm and the majority of passengers lined up at a security checkpoint are relaxed (or as relaxed as anyone can reasonably be when trying to catch a flight), a suspicious person will oftentimes stand out in stark contrast from the rest of the crowd. Also, encouraging clear communication between security officers and passengers helps passengers understand the “why” behind the rules, and facilitates the flow of traffic through the security checkpoint.




Sure, lights and signs are nice, but they are not in and of themselves the main focus of Checkpoint Evolution. Aside from targeted technological improvements—such as Whole Body Imaging, advanced technology X-ray machines, and inter-officer communication via ear-piece—the greatest benefits to security and passengers’ experience come from one thing in particular: enhanced training. TSA officers I met at BWI have completed a 16-hour training course (although training is ongoing) that focuses on explosives detection, intelligence analysis, and techniques for improved passenger engagement, with the ultimate goal being threat detection. This training will be given to every frontline employee, and has already started in some airports.

I asked the BWI officers what they thought of Checkpoint Evolution and the response was very positive. “It has made our job a lot easier,” said one of the officers. “Striking up a casual conversation with passengers allows us to get a better feel for the situation—not to mention that it makes our day more pleasant.”

Next, I hope to attend some of the training sessions to see what they’re like and get more feedback. I’ll report on that later.

Now for the all important question: What do passengers think? I haven’t had the chance to chat with any Checkpoint Evolution veterans just yet, but if you’ve been through BWI’s Southwest Airlines’ Terminal B, let us know what you think by posting comments.

Labels:

146 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really tired of warm and fuzzy "checkpoint evolution" stories in BWI.

November 4, 2008 12:42 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Paul, there is only one official blog at TSA. This is your first blog post -- not your first blog -- at TSA.

November 4, 2008 1:06 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Disclaimer: I've not been through a Checkpoint Evolution checkpoint, so I won't attempt to answer your question directly.

But since you're trying to "bridge the gap" between blogosphere and TSA ... there's at least one element of TSA's rhetoric on this topic which could be clearer.

You wrote:

So here’s the overarching theory: when the checkpoint environment is calm and the majority of passengers lined up at a security checkpoint are relaxed (or as relaxed as anyone can reasonably be when trying to catch a flight), a suspicious person will oftentimes stand out in stark contrast from the rest of the crowd.

One point which is often made in response is the following: airline travel is stressful for many people, independent of the security experience. I am assuming that the type of stress symptoms associated with fear of flying, or from the general disorientation of being in an unfamiliar place, are quite different from the stress symptoms associated with malicious intent. Is that, in fact, the case?

Otherwise, the message from TSA could be oversimplified as "Only terrorists are stressed out by checkpoints." Passengers would like to know that those observing us and looking for suspicious behavior can tell the difference between someone trying to cause problems and someone who's just had a lot of problems themselves that day.

November 4, 2008 1:14 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Phil, nice catch.

November 4, 2008 1:32 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Hi Jim,
Short answer: Yes, there is a difference between stress symptoms associated with malicious intent and stress symptoms stemming from other sources.

If you want a little more background on the subject, check out this link: http://webblog.abc7news.com/2008/05/tsa-behavior-de.html

November 4, 2008 1:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice intro Paul.
What is your role at TSA?
Do you have any type of Security experience?
Thanks.

November 4, 2008 1:41 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Welcome to the Zoo, Paul!

Looking at the blog exchanges so far with an "outsider's viewpoint," I'm sure you recognize that a lot of the seeming animosity between the "The Public" and "The TSA" on this blog is due to the public's questions and suggestions being essentially ignored.

There are valid questions presented here that have gone not only unanswered, but unacknowledged for months. Some of the folks here have taken it upon themselves to repeat those same questions at every opportunity in the hope that at some point the folks on the TSA side of the line will step up and offer a valid response.

With the TSA's repeated insistence that this blog should be a "dialogue" between the public and the folks who work for them, one would expect a lot more responsiveness from the TSA...

Quite seriously you might be able to make researching and responding to questions from the public into a retirement job - there certainly are enough unanswered questions.

Perhaps once you have a grounding in TSA functions and background you can become the person who goes back to the beginning, researching and responding to legitimate questions and suggestions from the public. I can think of no better way to thoroughly learn and understand the PR job. :o)

Good luck,
Tom (1 of 5-6)

P.S. In fact, going back to the beginning would even explain my signature. :^D

November 4, 2008 1:54 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous,
My primary role here at the TSA is to help Blogger Bob with the TSA blog. I'll be writing 1-2 posts per week.

Nope, not really any security experience since I'm straight out of college, but I'm learning fast. In a way, you could consider that a good thing since I can get an objective look at everything.

November 4, 2008 1:58 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Hi Tomas,
Point taken about those who continually post the same question over and over due to a lack of response on our end. But that's part of the reason why I'm here.

When it was just Bob, it got a bit overwhelming, so hopefully I'll be able to give him some relief.

I'd love to go back to the beginning and take a look at some of those questions after I get grounded here. In fact, I might try to tackle some unanswered questions in a future blog post.

November 4, 2008 2:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'd love to go back to the beginning and take a look at some of those questions after I get grounded here."

Oh, I wouldn't worry.

They will come up again.

My congratulations (or condolences) on your new position.

BTW, what was your major?

November 4, 2008 2:18 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Paul, where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply specifically at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.

Note that I'm not asking for tips for travelers, suggestions on how to pack our bags, hints, clues, guidelines, or press releases. I'm not asking to see TSA's super-secret procedures (those that thousands of lowest-level-of-TSA airport security guards who turn over at a rate of somewhere around 25% per year, are allowed to see), not the entire TSA "guidelines for travelers" page, the entire TSA Web site (filled, as noted here and acknowledged by EoS staff with inconsistencies and inaccuracies), the entire U.S. Government Web, or the whole Internet -- just a list of the rules TSA imposes on travelers at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint.

Could you track that down for your readers? We've been asking for it here on your blog for well over six months, and it's simply inexcusable that we even need to ask. Until TSA provides this information, we're all just guessing at whether we're in compliance with the rules, so basically, TSA's luggage inspectors can stop any of us for any reason, or no reason at all. That's not the America that many of us thought we lived in.

November 4, 2008 2:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome Paul... I'm just glad that bob's new announcement was not election related.

Have not been through BWI. I believe my local airport(SMF) has some of the evolution stuff from the website. I've noticed just today that they have a family lane and the TSA personnel seem to be much nicer then past experiences.

In short... I like what I have seen.

PS I know some of these people are ruff around the edge's but there is a lot of good idea's floating around the blog... just don't take anything to personel around here(like bob).

November 4, 2008 2:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said...
Anonymous,
My primary role here at the TSA is to help Blogger Bob with the TSA blog. I'll be writing 1-2 posts per week.

Nope, not really any security experience since I'm straight out of college, but I'm learning fast. In a way, you could consider that a good thing since I can get an objective look at everything.

November 4, 2008 1:58 PM


I asked the questions you responded to. Thanks!

I'm not being snarky but without any background in Security how can you possbily address issues that are brought up here not having any degree of first hand knowledge?

You didn't state what your degree is in but I suspect it is related to the media/communications.

Many of the concerns stated here deal with the illusion of security, how people and their possessions are treated while in the hands of TSA/airlines and how anyone can expect travelers to comply with the TSA's secret rules.

I do hope for more answers from TSA which have been badly missing so far

November 4, 2008 2:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I asked the BWI officers what they thought of Checkpoint Evolution and the response was very positive. “It has made our job a lot easier,” said one of the officers. “Striking up a casual conversation with passengers allows us to get a better feel for the situation—not to mention that it makes our day more pleasant.”


I have no desire to have any conversation, casual or otherwise, with an agent of an organization that thinks it has the right to deny me freedom of movement or subject me to harassment without due process or even consideration of probable cause.

TSA is trying to create an environment that will eventually lead to each passenger being "interviewed" about their reasons for travel and then either granted or denied permission based on the validity of that reason and TSA's internal, secret travel dossier of their past travel habits, personal associations, who they tend to sit with on flights, etc.

Creating such dossiers is the only logical reason why TSA would be trying to collect flight itinerary information with Secure Flight; if it were really just about matching names to watch list, they would stick to collecting names and not require the airlines to re-transmit information and re-request travel permission each time a flight or schedule changes.

The combination of Secure Flight, TDCs with mandatory ID requirements, and BDOs will give TSA the infrastructure needed to implement random and arbitrary determinations of travel-worthiness.

To the TSOs: it is none of your business why I am traveling, where I am traveling, or whom I am travleing with or to. If you want me to see you as human beings, stop acting like power-tripping Stasi thugs with your papers-please checks, war-on-water, war-on-shoes, virtual strip machines, and secret blacklist with neither due process nor effective means of redress. Until then, you will just be Stasi thugs.

And don't tell me that you individually can't do anything about it. Fellow TSOs could have pressured the screener who made the woman strip off her bra to expose her nipple ring. Fellow TSOs could have pressured the screeners who confiscated/stole a custom battery pack even after acknowledging it wasn't a threat. Fellow TSOs could have stopped the numerous reported cases of disabled people being made to drop their pants, stand on injured limbs, etc. You all bear responsibility for these incidents. And history will judge you for them.

November 4, 2008 2:33 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

This post has been removed by the author.

November 4, 2008 2:42 PM

 
Blogger John Mc said...

Hey Paul,

You said "when the checkpoint environment is calm and the majority of passengers lined up at a security checkpoint are relaxed".

I think this extends to all facets of a checkpoint. Do signs read as helpful or read as ordered? Does the checkpoint have room or do it's job, or is it cramped into whatever space is available. Are the TSA people like walmart greeters or like cops who have pulled you over for speeding.

While pure aesthetics can help people relax, the whole picture needs to also be looked at. (Bad TSA experiences left for another day :-)

Best of luck in the new venture

- J

November 4, 2008 2:47 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Hi Phil,
In response to your post at 2:19pm:

Maybe it'll help if I break it down like this.

There are rules and regulations that exist which every passenger will definitely go through when traveling through a security checkpoint. Let’s call this the “Definite List.”

There also exists a set of “rules”/guidelines that are purely situational.

The one aspect of security that exists outside these two categories is the random screening process. This is neither definite, nor based on the particular situation. It's...well...random.

Now, first question, does a “Definite List” exist? Not in one place, so I guess that would be a no. But all the definite rules are out there on the TSA website. I'll try and compile them together in one place/page at some point when I have some free time.

Does a situational list exist? To some extent--meaning TSOs and BDOs are trained to deal with certain situations, but this "list" is by no means an exhaustive. That's just because any number of hypothetical situations could arise, so publishing a list saying "This is what we'll react to" wouldn't really make sense.

Hope that answers your question. If I take too long putting together that Definite List, shoot me another comment, and I'll give you an update.

November 4, 2008 2:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, first question, does a “Definite List” exist? Not in one place, so I guess that would be a no. But all the definite rules are out there on the TSA website. I'll try and compile them together in one place/page at some point when I have some free time.
..........................
Would these webpages include the ones that still state 3 oz as the limit instead of 3.4oz?

Would these webpages be the ones referenced by TSO NY who said that if a medicine did not have a perscription it did not go?

Would these webpages be the ones that prepared the lady who had leg injuries being forced to stand and break her ankles?

Can of Worms now opened! Enjoy!!

November 4, 2008 3:02 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous at 2:31pm

I have a degree in Government with a focus on Economics.

Fully agree that first-hand knowledge is important, which is why I'll be shadowing TSA officers in the coming weeks. Granted, it's not the same as actually doing their job, but at least I can get a little more experience that way.

Also, I have Blogger Bob right here to answer all of my questions, so he's a great resource. Not to mention the fact that I can read most documents within the TSA organization if I don't readily know the answer to a question.

November 4, 2008 3:02 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Already after you, aren't we, Paul? :o)

Paul wrote in repsonse to Phil...
Now, first question, does a Definite List exist? Not in one place, so I guess that would be a no. But all the definite rules are out there on the TSA website. I'll try and compile them together in one place/page at some point when I have some free time.

While you are doing that, you might want to verify that the information on the TSA website is actually correct, also.

For example, the liquid container acceptable size was changed from 3.0 ounces to 3.4 ounces (100ml) in 2006, but the old information is still on the site in multiple places and needs to be corrected.

There are other errors and omissions on the site in re rules we must follow, and combined those make us very distrustful of the information being provided to us officially...

Good luck!
Tom (1 of 5-6)

November 4, 2008 3:05 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

In response to Anonymous at 2:33pm

I knew I would get a response about the whole "casual conversation" part.

Here's the thing. If you don't want to talk to a TSA officer, tell them you don't feel like talking, or that you're busy. They are trained well enough to know that that alone isn't necessarily a red flag. There are plenty of other indicators.

On another note, a TSA officer's thought process oftentimes isn't: "I need to engage this passenger to see if he/she's a terrorist." It's more like, "I wonder how that guy/girl is doing." [Something weird happens] "Maybe I should keep talking to this guy/girl."

If nothing weird happens, it's just a pleasant conversation, not an interview.

November 4, 2008 3:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, you may just have accepted the hardest job on the planet. Good luck.

Here is my unanswered question: Why is the TSA investing in full body image technology, that cannot pick up explosives hidden in body cavities, and has to be kept optional due to its invasive character? Why not invest heavily in traces scanners?

November 4, 2008 3:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...



On another note, a TSA officer's thought process oftentimes isn't: "I need to engage this passenger to see if he/she's a terrorist." It's more like, "I wonder how that guy/girl is doing." [Something weird happens] "Maybe I should keep talking to this guy/girl."

If nothing weird happens, it's just a pleasant conversation, not an interview.


And if something weird happens, or the TSO perceives or assumes something weird happened, it is evidence that will be used against the passenger to issue a civil fine for a trumped-up "non-physical interference with screening" charge, which can only be contested in a far-off kangaroo Coast-Guard Court.

Interesting that you don't deny that TSA is building up to creating travel dossiers and using interviews to determine travel-worthiness.

--2:33 p.m. Anonymous (maybe I'll keep that name :) )

November 4, 2008 3:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, can you point us to an independent (non-TSA), peer-reviewed study that justifies any of TSA's liquid policies?

November 4, 2008 4:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you don't want to talk to a TSA officer, tell them you don't feel like talking, or that you're busy. They are trained well enough to know that that alone isn't necessarily a red flag."

That's not true. TSOs are poorly trained and generally unprofessional. I will not speak to a TSO, period, because TSOs get up each morning, put on a phony badge, and do al Qaeda's work for them by terrorizing innocent American citizens.

November 4, 2008 4:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, here's another many times asked, yet unanswered question - How exactly did you get this position? I work for TSA yet did not see this position adverstised on the official job site.
Why are we not afforded the same chance at this position as you?

November 4, 2008 5:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous on 4 November said:
Paul, you may just have accepted the hardest job on the planet. Good luck.

I don't know if the job Paul has accepted is the hardest or second hardest job on the planet, but I second the 'Good Luck' sentiment.
He's definitely walking into a firestorm.

Still have not heard back on when the TSA will comply with the 9/11 Commission Report requirements on cargo screening.

November 4, 2008 5:24 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Paul, in order to assist you with finding questions about TSA to answer, I created tsafaq.net. It's a wiki, so anyone can edit it. Initially, we'll just start slapping questions on the front page. Later, I or others can go back and reorganize.

Jim Huggins, Ayn R. Key, Tomas, Trollkiller, Sandra, Dean, Robert Johnson, Bob Eucher, and anyone else who is interested in participating: have at it.

November 4, 2008 5:50 PM

 
Anonymous tso rachel said...

I am so excited to see another blogger on the scene!

November 4, 2008 6:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So,please be the first TSA blogger to explain the ban on tiny inch-and-a-half pocket knives when 4' sharp pointed scissors and metal knitting needles are allowed. And please don't just say knives are banned and "a knife is a kife is a knife."

November 4, 2008 6:52 PM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Paul @ "The one aspect of security that exists outside these two categories is the random screening process. This is neither definite, nor based on the particular situation. It's...well...random."

How about the other random parts that result from inept training, poor documentation for both your employees and the public, and bad management? Is that a bug or a feature? For example, the wrongly confiscated gel-pack that was supposed to keep 13 oz of my wife's breast milk from spoiling.

As an economics major, can you speak to the costs of TSA and how they compare to the benefits? Would, as some people think, society be better off if the the 2,800,000 person hours per day that we spend on TSA was spent on knocking a few percent off of the 40,000 annual traffic fatalities rather than partially screening for a 1 in a billion dumb terrorist?

November 4, 2008 8:28 PM

 
Anonymous Miller said...

Heres some questions:

As a traveler how do I secure my luggage against TSO thieves? TSA approved locks are junk.

When an item goes missing the airlines points at TSA while TSA points at the airlines. Where is shared responsibility for lost/damaged items?

Those aircraft damaged by an employee of DHS/TSA who paid for the repairs?

Abusive TSOs. What is TSA doing about removing them from contact with the flying public?

Elderly/handicapped abuse by TSOs. Why is it still happening? Why hasn't this been corrected?

November 4, 2008 8:42 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

Welcome aboard, Paul.

That said, I feel very sorry for you. Perhaps your bosses thought you could offer a valuable "outsider" perspective to benefit whatever they consider the actual purpose of this blog. But bringing in a recent college graduate (who can't possibly be expected to know anything) to represent the TSA merely re-confirms the impression many of us have that your bosses are completely disconnected from the public. It's just another one of their many failures, though a minor one because it has nothing to do with "security." Regardless, just remember that you're not to blame for any of it.

A major problem with this blog is that, as others have noted, important, relevant, and substantive questions get asked repeatedly because they're never answered. Yes, we get a rehash of the Official Party Line from Kip whenever something in the media is embarrassing enough to merit diversion from his much more important (and much more secret) normal duties. In between we get Official Propaganda about how effective the TSA is, and how they're improving the "screening experience" with virtual strip search machines and mood lighting (and now "casual conversation"). But amidst all the Official distraction, we can't avoid noticing that none of our questions ever get answered (or if they do, the non-answer is some variant of "it's classified SSI that would aid the enemy").

So how do your bosses choose to address that persistent deficiency? They bring in a new college graduate, who has as little authority to provide definitive answers to our questions as the janitor who cleans the Homeland Security headquarters building. Intentionally or otherwise, the message is "We're not going to answer. We're going to find new ways to bamboozle you."

I do have to give your bosses credit for (apparently) recognizing that the TSA has a severe public relations and credibility problem. It's inherent to the way the TSA operates, in large part because it's part of a (thankfully soon-to-depart) administration that has nothing but contempt for civil liberties, the rule of law, and most likely anyone who isn't a "loyal Bushie." Americans are free people, despite eight years of the administration doing everything they can to change that. And we resent intrusions into our lives by government officials. Especially when it involves arbitrary and seemingly nonsensical rules and restrictions, administered in the capricious, heavy-handed, inept, and often contemptuous fashion we too often experience at checkpoints.

Immediately after 9/11, fear was sufficient to overcome our resistance to government intrusion and to make us ignore (or at least not talk about) the absurdities we endured at airports while the TSA was being set up. But now that the fear has been appropriately replaced with the "new normal," we feel we can open our eyes and question what is plainly (and disturbingly) apparent. But when the TSA (and their Homeland Security bosses) respond to every question or criticism with with "it's all necessary based on secret intelligence, so you'll have to trust us," that will only increase the skepticism and resentment. Spin, condescension, and outright lies (such as Bob's claims that the virtual strip searches are so innocuous that children could view them) only make things worse. But that's just what we've gotten from the TSA on this blog. If this blog was actually meant to improve the TSA's standing and credibility with the public, by any measure it has been a failure.

So that's what you're dealing with here, Paul. But it's important to remember we question, criticize, and express our frustration with the TSA because we genuinely care about our country. And because we share the same goal as the TSA supposedly does, to keep our flights safe from the terrorist threat. We want to cooperate with the TSA in that goal. And we'd be more than willing to whatever your bosses decide is necessary to further that goal. But only if we have reason to believe that it's genuinely necessary and effective, and not merely intrusive hassle for the sake of "security theater" that promotes the growth of a costly bureaucracy. "It's secret, so trust us" definitely won't do that, especially if your bosses don't understand that condescension and arrogance only makes your mission more difficulty.

I don't know what you can do to help fix that problem. Perhaps you'll be able to make things better under a new administration that has more respect for civil liberties, the rule of law, and the general public than the current administration does. You've got your work (whatever that is) cut out for you, convincing an increasingly skeptical traveling public that the TSA is an effective organization that earns our trust.

November 4, 2008 10:55 PM

 
Blogger Gunner said...

Oh great, the system is totally broken, TSA is out of control, and now we get lectured at by a NCG (new college graduate) who extolls the virtues of checkpoint kumbayah, but probably doesn't know which end of the airplane points down the runway.

This blog is broken beyond repair.

November 4, 2008 10:59 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Paul welcome to the club. You need a handle so we can differentiate you from regular folks. Blogger Bob puts;
Bob
EoS Blog Team

at the bottom of his posts, I suggest you do something similar.

I will work on your handle but for now I will just call you Not Bob.

Not Bob said...

Since I don’t have the frontline experience like my colleague Bob, I’ll be spending the next few weeks meeting people here at TSA, spending time at local airports, and monitoring the blogosphere to see what other folks are talking about to come up with blog topics to cover.


When you see Francine Kerner tell her Trollkiller said "hi" and he is still waiting on a proper response from his DHS OIG complaint that was forwarded to her office on Tuesday, September 9, 2008. The control number is HL08-0526. Tell her if it does not arrive soon I will be forced to file a FOIA request and pursue the issue further.

When you see Kip, tell him Trollkiller said "hey". Ask him if he can fix the forced ID verification as he is leaving. He will know what you are talking about. (Don't worry he is not as scary as he is made out to be)

If you want to make a good impression on Blogger Bob you need to buy him an ugly tie. He loves those.

My suggestion is this weekend, grab some refreshments and start reading the archives. It will take a while so start early and retire late. It will be a tough read but it will make you understand the group of stalwarts that inhabit this corner of cyberspace. Besides it will keep you off or Reddit and Fark.

I will try to let you get your feet wet before tossing you an anvil but I can’t promise.

November 5, 2008 1:56 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous on November 4, 2008 3:52 PM

Just wanted to clarify a couple of things. TSA Officers are not conducting interviews and they are not creating travel dossiers.

Keep in mind, just because I don't specifically address the issues raised in your previous comment (i.e. interviews and travel dossiers), isn't evidence that these issues exist.

Thanks for the comment.

November 5, 2008 9:26 AM

 
Blogger MarkVII said...

Hello, Paul, and welcome to the blog.

As you've uncountably noticed, there's a sense of frustration here about unanswered questions, lack of response to suggestions, and recurring problems.

I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to go back through the blog archives and catalog the various problems reported and also suggestions offered. It would also we worthwhile to note how many times each item appeared one the blog and if/how the item was dealt with in the blog.

Time consuming? Undoubtedly! But to win the hearts and minds of the flying public is going to require dealing with a significant majority of the issues at hand, and not just a selected few.

For example, I'm still waiting for some indication that the checkpoint personnel are being held accountable for how they treat the passengers.

Once again, welcome. I am glad to see a full time blogger, as the part time scheme being used before led to some long gaps in comments being approved.

November 5, 2008 9:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, how much exposure have you had at the nations airports as a traveler? Once a week, once a month, rarely?

Since your new to the world of TSA I'm wondering how many times you traversed a TSA checkpoint and how your experience went.

Just trying to get a handle on what you do know and what you do not know. Seems the "do not know" has the larger base at this point.

November 5, 2008 9:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to the "Where are all the rules?" question that keeps coming up. Go here:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=c46e961521e215e640dc4e642149fe20&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv9_02.tpl#1200

Then look at all the rules under part 1500. For passenger related stuff, look specifically at 1540.

November 5, 2008 9:51 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous on November 4, 2008 4:03 PM

I did a quick search online and didn't come up with anything. I'm assuming that any half-decent independent review of the effectiveness of the TSA's liquid policies would have to go in-depth into the technological aspects of the machinery we use, so that's probably why we (meaning me and you) won't be able to find anything in the public sphere.

November 5, 2008 9:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have a degree in Government"

Cool!



...which Government?

November 5, 2008 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Paul,

I will add my welcome to the others previously posted & sincerely hope you stick around longer than Bob's previous blogger help. However, based on many of your responses so far, I am guessing that you not only don't have any security experience (don't worry, neither do many of your colleagues, sadly), but it seems like you don't have much first hand experience w/the TSA as a traveler nor have you spent much time reading even this blog, never mind other sites such as FlyerTalk. If you are serious about providing help to Bob, & the traveling public who foots the bill for TSA's security theater, of which you are now a part, I would strongly recommend you spend some quality time on both this blog & Flyertalk, in the Travel Safety & Security Forum specifically, before you start passing out platitudes-not only will you not make any friends by doing so, you will very quickly earn yourself a reputation of nothing more than a TSA PR puppet; we've had more than enough of that, thank you. Your comment re: a 'suspicious person' standing out from the 'innocent' travelers is so inane I don't even know where to start on that, but fortunately, others have, multiple times & multiple ways, some even in this very thread.

W/re: to the TSA website, if you go trolling thru that, keep an eye peeled for statements claiming it is 'illegal' to carry more than $10K in cash & make them go away, preferably for good. Or, please provide the statute in US law that prohibits this & I don't mean the fact that a person transporting an excess of $10K into/out of the US must declare it to US Customs (for the record, the TSA is not Customs, in case Bob hadn't gotten to that part of your orientation yet). Making a declaration to a US gov't agency is NOT the same as it being 'illegal' to carry something.

Your blog is filled with many, many more such examples of & quite frankly, there are much better uses of your time than starting yet another discussion on Kip's new decorating scheme (especially since there is already a lengthy thread on it & Bob frowns on off topic posts).

In short, you will find most of the people who post here, especially those who post on a regular basis, have much more experience w/your employer than you do & know it better than you will even after shadowing a few screeners @ BWI. Pay attention to what you are told & you will learn.

BTW-I had the misfortune of having to transit TSA's Ski Slopes @ BNA x2 in October alone. There are something like 6 lines feeding into 2 ID checkers, most of them Blue & Green. After that there is only 1 Black lane, the rest blue & green. All of this, however, is completely nullified by the screener standing there telling each passenger to 'Pick the shortest line & you're good to go' (not that human nature wouldn't have already dictated that anyway). Based on my experience, the only good thing to come out of Kip's evolution is the 'recomposition' area (also known as a bench or seat) after the WTMD, but in my opinion, that's not an evolution, it's just common sense that if the TSA is going to continue the shoe carnival, there needs to be somewhere for the traveling public to re-shoe themselves (especially for those w/mobility issues like Tom, 1 of 5 or 6). However, one thing those of us who travel frequently know is that common sense is not something the TSA has any expertise in.

November 5, 2008 10:12 AM

 
Anonymous Dave said...

"Striking up a conversation with a passenger"

Don't try that with me. I refuse to talk to your agency. I might once you start having some respect for your customers and respecting OUR rights.

Say hi to Kip on his way out the door in January.

November 5, 2008 12:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When is Kip's going away party?

Wanted to be sure to send a note of thanks!

November 5, 2008 12:37 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Dear Paul Not Bob,

It has been a while since one of my posts got sent to the shredder. Hmm let me review.
Followed on topic rules? Check.
No personal attacks? Check.
No racial, ethnic, or vulgar language? Check.
No spam? Check.

The only thing I can see is I told you to pass a message to Francine about my DHS OIG complaint. That complaint is common knowledge on this blog.

While I will agree that Francine is a Federal Civil Service employee, the rule banning mentioning them by name was set up, and you can check with Blogger Bob, to prevent unsubstantiated accusations against TSOs and other Federal employees.

It is a good rule because we don't need character assassinations against people that are not here to defend themselves.

Please go review my first post in light of the proper interpenetration of the rules. If you are unable to retrieve it let me know and I will repost it.

Thanks.

November 5, 2008 12:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, I might just be old-fashioned, but ever since I found out about BDOs, I have not been able to understand why the TSA thinks that a woman traveller, in a strange place (the airport), carrying valuables (a laptop, credit cards, or a significant amount of money), and trying to get to a gate before her plane leaves, would do anything except give the cold shoulder to a stranger (male or female) who tried to make small talk with her. Personally, I'd find a LEO and report that someone was harassing me, and I suspect many other women would too.

November 5, 2008 1:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I did a quick search online and didn't come up with anything. I'm assuming that any half-decent independent review of the effectiveness of the TSA's liquid policies would have to go in-depth into the technological aspects of the machinery we use, so that's probably why we (meaning me and you) won't be able to find anything in the public sphere."

Where is the independent, peer-reviewed research that supports the notion that liquids in volume greater than 3.4 ounces could feasibly destroy an aircraft?

November 5, 2008 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"TSA Officers are not conducting interviews and they are not creating travel dossiers."

Are you trying to tell us that TSOs who interrogate citizens who don't have ID aren't conducting interviews? And that TSA is not retaining records of who these people are, including when and where they travel?

November 5, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Tom said...

Anonymous said...
"If you don't want to talk to a TSA officer, tell them you don't feel like talking, or that you're busy. They are trained well enough to know that that alone isn't necessarily a red flag."

That's not true. TSOs are poorly trained and generally unprofessional. I will not speak to a TSO, period, because TSOs get up each morning, put on a phony badge, and do al Qaeda's work for them by terrorizing innocent American citizens.

November 4, 2008 4:26 PM
***********************************
Anon;
I'm sorry you feel that way. I do have to disagree with you though, I get up each morning with one goal in mind.....make sure no prohibited or potentially destructive items get onto any planes while I'm on duty! That's my job, that's my goal....if you feel terrorized by what I do, then I do apologize. But it would be a bigger loss to have a plane go down, then to have you inconvenienced for 5 or 10 minutes. Would anyone like to call my supervisor and lodge a complaint regarding my unprofessional behavior? ;-)

November 5, 2008 2:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Anon November 4, 2008 2:33 PM "secret blacklist with neither due process nor effective means of redress.

TSA has just started Traveler Redress Inquiry Program(TRIP).

Info found here!

This is for: People who have been repeatedly identified for additional screening can file an inquiry to have erroneous information corrected in DHS systems.

TRIP website

Before, during, and after you can send us your comments and your feedback is welcome. TSA Contact Center

thank you

November 5, 2008 3:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
"TSA Officers are not conducting interviews and they are not creating travel dossiers."

Are you trying to tell us that TSOs who interrogate citizens who don't have ID aren't conducting interviews?

And that TSA is not retaining records of who these people are?

Including when and where they travel?

November 5, 2008 2:28 PM"

We are to #1, we do to #2 and believe it or not, we don't to #3.
(at least at my airport)

TSO

November 5, 2008 4:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attentions readers: do not go for the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP)! They do not answer inquiries in any useful or even understandable manner. It is just a ploy to get your personal information. It will not change your haraSSSSment status.

November 5, 2008 4:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSO TOM said....I'm sorry you feel that way. I do have to disagree with you though, I get up each morning with one goal in mind.....make sure no prohibited or potentially destructive items get onto any planes while I'm on duty!
................................
Well TSO Tom would you care to tell us how the FORCED ID CHECKING which is against constitutional protections helps you keep prohibited or distructive items off airplanes? Or how the Travel Paper Checking do the same? Or questioning a person just because they have a large sum of cash on their person helps in your job endeavor of keeping dangerous things off airplanes?

Don't these things make your job much harder since you spend your time looking for and at things that have no safety concerns?

How many manhours are wasted looking at ID and Boarding Passes?

How much more effective could you be if you only looked for dangerous and prohibited items.
Your goal will likely lead to failure since you spend more time doing things that do not address dangerous items.

November 5, 2008 4:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Anon November 5, 2008 4:36 PM Attentions readers: do not go for the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP)! They do not answer inquiries in any useful or even understandable manner. It is just a ploy to get your personal information. It will not change your haraSSSSment status.

The Department of Homeland Security safeguards the privacy of any personal information that you provide in your inquiry to DHS TRIP. This information will be protected and will only be shared in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and as provided in the Privacy Impact Assessment published for DHS TRIP.

How the Information You Submit Will Be Used

The information that you provide will be used to process your request for redress. To process your request, DHS TRIP will share this information within the Department and outside the Department with components or entities that can help address the underlying issues regarding your redress request. DHS TRIP may share information about you with airlines or other third parties where necessary to implement the redress resolution.

In very limited circumstances, information from an individual may be shared for reasons not related to the redress process. For example, if a person were to submit information indicating illegal activity, such as providing a fraudulent passport or driver’s license, this information may be turned over to appropriate authorities for proper investigation. In addition, information may be shared with the National Archives and Records Administration for proper handling of government records or when specifically relevant to litigation involving the Federal government or when necessary to protect the person who provided the information from the harm of identity theft in the case of a data breach affecting this system.



Traveler Redress Inquiry Program Privacy Impact Assessment Warning PDF

Systems of Records Notice for the Traveler Redress Inquiry

November 5, 2008 5:09 PM

 
Blogger Bob Eucher said...

Anonymous said...
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to the "Where are all the rules?" question that keeps coming up. Go here:

Then look at all the rules under part 1500. For passenger related stuff, look specifically at 1540.


I did look. I found NO reference to the liquids ban. But I did find this:

1540.111 Carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals.

(a) On an individual's person or accessible property—prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—


So guess what? My 16 oz bottle of water is NOT an explosive. My full size tube of toothpaste is NOT an explosive. So under these rules, you should allow me to take those items. Please show me in those rules, where it says I am NOT allowed to take water onboard an airplane.

November 5, 2008 5:32 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous at 3:29pm said:

"Why is the TSA investing in full body image technology, that cannot pick up explosives hidden in body cavities, and has to be kept optional due to its invasive character? Why not invest heavily in traces scanners?"

It's my understanding that WBIs are used as an option because they are non-invasive. The other option would be a pat down, which most people would consider more invasive than a WBI.

Trace scanners are certainly a great asset to TSA Officers. The TSA has invested in explosive Trace Portals that can detect even the tiniest amount of explosive, which you're bound to have is you try to smuggle some in via body cavity.

Hope that makes sense.

November 5, 2008 5:49 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous said November 4, 2008 6:52 PM

"So,please be the first TSA blogger to explain the ban on tiny inch-and-a-half pocket knives when 4' sharp pointed scissors and metal knitting needles are allowed. And please don't just say knives are banned and "a knife is a kife is a knife." "

Yeah, that's a tough one. I'm not saying I agree with it (or disagree with it), but I think the reasoning might be something along the lines "A knife (by virtue of being a knife) is more overtly a weapon than a pair of pointed scissors less than 4'"

Think of it this way. Both knives and scissors can cut things, but knives are more versatile with this particular action. In a hypothetical scenario where there's a confrontation, what would be more dangerous, if I took a swipe at someone with a knife, or with a pair of scissors? Granted, both can be used in a stabbing motion, but so can pens and pencils. So we have to draw the line somewhere.

I hope that makes sense.

November 5, 2008 6:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul,

Your answer about whole body scanning is no good.

Giving a person an option between a full body scan or a pat down is not only repulsive either way, but most of all downright stupid, because the one in a billion person who has something to hide will chose what suits him/her best.

On the other hand, trace scanners do not generate objectionable images or touching. Until you have traces scanners everywhere, there is absolutely no reason to purchase whole body scanners, except as security theater. TSA has been investing a lot more heavily in whole body imaging than in trace detection (As Kip informed us), and I want to know why you consider this a priority.

November 5, 2008 6:07 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Mr. Gel-pack November 4, 2008 8:28 PM:

On the breast milk issue, can you give me some more details about the situation?

On this issue:
"Would, as some people think, society be better off if the the 2,800,000 person hours per day that we spend on TSA was spent on knocking a few percent off of the 40,000 annual traffic fatalities rather than partially screening for a 1 in a billion dumb terrorist?"

I mean, there are too many unknown variables to work with there. If we were theoretically to redistribute 2,800,000 man hours to help out with annual traffic fatalities, which organizations would best make use of those man hours to help reduce traffic fatalities.

Also, what kind of traffic fatalities? I don't want to sound snarky (by the way, I have no idea where this word came from), but if you're asking me to tackle this from an economists point of view, I need to get really specific.

If we put all this aside, what kind of scenarios would your study cover? Just mid-air explosions(where life lost is almost definitely < 1000)? Or flying planes into buildings (where life lost could easily reach well into the 1000s).

If you're just going by historical data on terrorist attacks since 9/11 (none), you'll obviously come to the conclusion that we should take resources away from terrorist prevention. But that conclusion is kind of erroneous because one terrorist incident on a flight could easily cost 1000s of lives.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.

November 5, 2008 6:20 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Miller on November 4, 2008 8:42 PM

"As a traveler how do I secure my luggage against TSO thieves? TSA approved locks are junk."

You need to use the TSA approved locks. No other options at this point as far as I know.

"When an item goes missing the airlines points at TSA while TSA points at the airlines. Where is shared responsibility for lost/damaged items?"

What do you recommend? (Give me something beyond just: TSA should pay for it, because that's not really feasible).

"Those aircraft damaged by an employee of DHS/TSA who paid for the repairs?"

Not really sure what you mean here.

"Abusive TSOs. What is TSA doing about removing them from contact with the flying public?

Elderly/handicapped abuse by TSOs. Why is it still happening? Why hasn't this been corrected?"

First, give me an example of an abusive TSO. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to get a better idea of what you're talking about.

Here's what's being done. Go to www.tsa.gov. Find the "Got Feedback" button. Fill out all the relevant information on the page, and a Customer Service Manager (CSM) at that airport (where the incident occurred) will send you a response. We are keeping track of all compliments/complaints and CSM responses here at HQ.

November 5, 2008 6:32 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

George on November 4, 2008 10:55 PM

Just as a preface. I enjoyed reading your comment. You're a talented writer, and I look forward to reading more comments from you. But your arguments need a little work.

Are college students not members of the public? If I concede the point that my bosses are disconnected from the public (which they're not), how am I disconnected from the public?

A better argument would be that long-term career federal employees are disconnected from the government (though I'm not saying they are). Doesn't that make more sense?

About your second paragraph, I'm trying to answer everyone's questions even if we haven't in the past. Give me a chance here.

You go on to say:
"In between we get Official Propaganda about how effective the TSA is, and how they're improving the "screening experience" with virtual strip search machines and mood lighting (and now "casual conversation")"

Propaganda? Really? It's not like we only report positive things here. Plus, we allow you to post comments (like your own) that are anything but positive. If we were trying to publish propaganda, publishing really negative comments would be a bad idea.

You go on:
"It's inherent to the way the TSA operates, in large part because it's part of a (thankfully soon-to-depart) administration that has nothing but contempt for civil liberties, the rule of law, and most likely anyone who isn't a "loyal Bushie." Americans are free people, despite eight years of the administration doing everything they can to change that. And we resent intrusions into our lives by government officials. Especially when it involves arbitrary and seemingly nonsensical rules and restrictions, administered in the capricious, heavy-handed, inept, and often contemptuous fashion we too often experience at checkpoints."

Your argument would hold some more weight if it were backed up with some examples and facts. Contempt for civil liberties? Explain specifically. Arbitrary rules? Nope, definitely not arbitrary. TSA does not create policies via decree. Capricious, heavy-handed, inept? Even if you did see TSA officers displaying these characteristics, limited anecdotal evidence (how many first-hand examples can you give me?) does not mean your claims are true the majority of the time.

You go on:
"But when the TSA (and their Homeland Security bosses) respond to every question or criticism with with "it's all necessary based on secret intelligence, so you'll have to trust us," that will only increase the skepticism and resentment."

Assuming the quote about secret intelligence is from a legitimate source, how can you say that we respond to EVERY question with some version of this? C'mon, that's just inflammatory writing since it's blatantly not true.

You go on:
"We want to cooperate with the TSA in that goal. And we'd be more than willing to whatever your bosses decide is necessary to further that goal. But only if we have reason to believe that it's genuinely necessary and effective, and not merely intrusive hassle for the sake of "security theater" that promotes the growth of a costly bureaucracy."

Perfectly reasonable comment. Basically what you're saying is that we need to convince the public that our policies are effective (which they are), less intrusive (that's the whole point of WBIs, i.e. no pat downs), and not simply for show (they're not).

Why isn't reasonable to believe this already? We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies), we're making huge leaps in technology that help accomodate passenger preference without sacrificing security (WBIs), and we don't have the money to waste on policies that are simply for show.

Looking forward to your response.

November 5, 2008 7:15 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Trollkiller on November 5, 2008 12:44 PM

Not sure which post you're referring to. Resend it.

- Paul

November 5, 2008 7:24 PM

 
Anonymous Miller said...


"As a traveler how do I secure my luggage against TSO thieves? TSA approved locks are junk."

You need to use the TSA approved locks. No other options at this point as far as I know.



yOOOOOHOOOO. TSA approved locks are junk. What part of that don't you understand? They fall apart during the baggage handling process.

So once again. How do I secure my luggage against baggage thefts since TSA mandates unsecured luggage (we reserve the right to search you luggage after we already searched it). I've had locks (both TSA approved and Non-TSA approved cut off after the initial search when they were unlocked). Shouldn't be a hard question for a college graduate.

"When an item goes missing the airlines points at TSA while TSA points at the airlines. Where is shared responsibility for lost/damaged items?"

What do you recommend? (Give me something beyond just: TSA should pay for it, because that's not really feasible).

Not my job to fix your problems. Both the airlines and TSA get a free ride because of the finger pointing.


"Those aircraft damaged by an employee of DHS/TSA who paid for the repairs?"

Not really sure what you mean here..

Recently a DHS/TSA inspector used a TAT probe as a handle to haul himself up to the door on an aircraft. Upwards of nine aircraft were damaged during this jungle gym fiasco. Who paid to get the aircraft fixed?

"Abusive TSOs. What is TSA doing about removing them from contact with the flying public?

Elderly/handicapped abuse by TSOs. Why is it still happening? Why hasn't this been corrected?"

First, give me an example of an abusive TSO. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to get a better idea of what you're talking about.

Pop on over to flyer talk and see what other passengers deal with on a near daily basis. We're talking about some serious abuses here.

Here's what's being done. Go to www.tsa.gov. Find the "Got Feedback" button. Fill out all the relevant information on the page, and a Customer Service Manager (CSM) at that airport (where the incident occurred) will send you a response. We are keeping track of all compliments/complaints and CSM responses here at HQ.

Filled out one online and never heard back. Didn't expect anything else though.

November 5, 2008 8:12 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Paul, not to be overly critical here, but this entire post should not have happened. :o(

Poster Paul wrote...
"As a traveler how do I secure my luggage against TSO thieves? TSA approved locks are junk."

You need to use the TSA approved locks. No other options at this point as far as I know.

"When an item goes missing the airlines points at TSA while TSA points at the airlines. Where is shared responsibility for lost/damaged items?"

What do you recommend? (Give me something beyond just: TSA should pay for it, because that's not really feasible).

"Those aircraft damaged by an employee of DHS/TSA who paid for the repairs?"

Not really sure what you mean here.

"Abusive TSOs. What is TSA doing about removing them from contact with the flying public?

Elderly/handicapped abuse by TSOs. Why is it still happening? Why hasn't this been corrected?"

First, give me an example of an abusive TSO. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to get a better idea of what you're talking about.

Here's what's being done. Go to www.tsa.gov. Find the "Got Feedback" button. Fill out all the relevant information on the page, and a Customer Service Manager (CSM) at that airport (where the incident occurred) will send you a response. We are keeping track of all compliments/complaints and CSM responses here at HQ.


Each of those items mentioned has a long, well documented history here on this BLOG, and quite seriously you need to be aquainted with those histories before you can even begin to coherently address them.

For example, checked luggage can be locked with other than the TSA toy locks in certain circumstances, and it is an open question as to whether or not those specific circumstances can be legitimately expanded to others. (Search for my comment in this blog about transporting firearms for background.)

Aircraft damage by the TSA was covered in the national media and even had a post and few hundred comments (and many unanswered questions) here after one of TSA's TSIs used the precision instrumentation probes on an unknown number of commercial aircraft to actually climb the sides of those aircraft to prove he could get in. It was only after some maintenance folks saw him do it that he admitted he had done it before. That particular incident grounded a number of planes and canceled flights until they could be inspected/repaired.

The elderly/handicapped questions are an ongoing moving disaster for TSA PR folks. Numerous cases, well documented in the news. Numerous posts in this BLOG. Even I have jumped in on occasion here since I am one of those PITA handicapped folks.

That's just a few of the points above, but trust me, there are months of posts and comments, many hundreds of comments, already here and available on EoS, and you really do not want us to go over it all again. Trust me, you don't.

Paul, have Bob give you some time to go over everything that has gone before on this blog, so that you have an understanding of where we are and how we got here. Without that you are going to be constantly stepping on land mines...

Good luck,
Tom (1 of 5-6)

November 5, 2008 9:32 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Poster Paul wrote...
...Your argument would hold some more weight if it were backed up with some examples and facts. Contempt for civil liberties? Explain specifically. Arbitrary rules? Nope, definitely not arbitrary. TSA does not create policies via decree. Capricious, heavy-handed, inept? Even if you did see TSA officers displaying these characteristics, limited anecdotal evidence (how many first-hand examples can you give me?) does not mean your claims are true the majority of the time...

Before someone else nails you to the wall for this, let me give you a head start on protecting yourself from them.

You do not have the same background in this BLOG that many of the commenters do, and fail to recognize that examples, facts, legal references, and much discussion have already happened RIGHT HERE.

You just stepped into the line of fire, and need to step back under cover quickly, and while you are there, read, and read fast, what came before in the EoS BLOG.

You really, really need to get up to speed on what is already here before you can do more than acknowledge questions and mark comments for acceptance.

Tom (1 of 5-6)

November 5, 2008 9:42 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Paul said...
Trollkiller on November 5, 2008 12:44 PM

Not sure which post you're referring to. Resend it.

- Paul


It was posted on a delay. Sometimes that happens on this blog in an attempt to bury a post. Scroll up to my post date November 5, 2008 1:56 AM

That would be one thing that I would hope that you will be able to fix.

And here I thought you were upset with the "Not Bob" handle.

November 5, 2008 10:40 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

Thank you for responding to my post, Paul.

Are college students not members of the public? If I concede the point that my bosses are disconnected from the public (which they're not), how am I disconnected from the public?

College students (and recent graduates, for that matter) are indeed members of the public. But they are probably not members of the traveling public, or at least not to the extent of older people who have more money. But that's not the point. Looking back on my own days as a recent college graduate (when trilobites still ruled the Earth), there is no way I could have been remotely qualified for the difficult task your bosses have apparently given you, as a liaison between a much-maligned government agency and the very people who malign it. For that matter, I can't think of anyone among my classmates who would have been qualified to do that.

Again, please note that this is a criticism of your bosses and not of you! I'm sure you're bright and conscientious, and are eager to do whatever you can for us. But there are inherent limits to what you can do (none of which are your fault).

A better argument would be that long-term career federal employees are disconnected from the government (though I'm not saying they are). Doesn't that make more sense?

Yes, and that's indeed the point. It was surely one of those "long-term federal employees" who assigned a recent college graduate to deal with the public-relations problem your agency has with the unappreciative and utterly ignorant public. I don't think they're disconnected from the government (of which they are a part), but their decision shows that they're disconnected from the public. Conversely, your bosses might have improved their credibility if they had instead assigned a manager at a high enough level to actually provide directly knowledgeable responses to our questions and-- hoping against hope-- is actually in a position to address the issues in a useful fashion. But apparently earning the respect of the public isn't important enough to waste a manager's time. (And no, Kip flitting in to spin away damaging press doesn't count.)

Your argument would hold some more weight if it were backed up with some examples and facts. Contempt for civil liberties? Explain specifically. Arbitrary rules? Nope, definitely not arbitrary. TSA does not create policies via decree. Capricious, heavy-handed, inept? Even if you did see TSA officers displaying these characteristics, limited anecdotal evidence (how many first-hand examples can you give me?) does not mean your claims are true the majority of the time.
...
Assuming the quote about secret intelligence is from a legitimate source, how can you say that we respond to EVERY question with some version of this? C'mon, that's just inflammatory writing since it's blatantly not true.


The only way I can respond to that is to echo the earlier suggestion that you spend some time reading older posts on this blog, and also spend some time at various other flyer forums. You might better appreciate the depth of discontent and distrust of your agency. Even though you obviously shouldn't take everything you see as fact, you'll see plenty of examples of all these concerns, as well as the way TSA representatives consistently respond to questions with variations on "it's secret, so trust us." That's why the same questions get asked repeatedly, why you see so much frustration, and particularly why I (and others?) are so disappointed that your bosses have decided to assign a very junior person to (possibly?) address the concerns. (Once again, this criticism is directed at your bosses and not at you!)

Basically what you're saying is that we need to convince the public that our policies are effective (which they are), less intrusive (that's the whole point of WBIs, i.e. no pat downs), and not simply for show (they're not).

I'll give your bosses half a mark for spending some time on training you! But simply telling us (yet again) that your policies are effective, that virtual strip search machines aren't intrusive, and that your policies aren't just for show won't do anything to convince us. That's been the whole problem with this blog. Repeating the Party Line endlessly won't make it true! But you're quite right about what you need to do. It's not an easy task at all!

As a small example, I think you'd do a better job getting us to accept WBI if you level with us. Admit that it's a virtual strip search, and explain that it's a technology that provides genuinely improved ability to detect truly dangerous items, far better than the current absurd rules about shoes and liquids. Rather than insisting that it's "friendly" and "protects privacy," just admit that it is intrusive and invasive, but it's such effective protection that many would consider sacrificing their privacy. And don't insist that "passengers have a choice" if that choice is between being electronically strip searched and an old-fashioned groping from Bruno or Brunhilde. Either way is a possibly humiliating assault on our dignity, but it's a necessary assault to protect aviation effectively. Your bosses may believe that spinning it or bending the truth until it snaps is the way to con the public into accepting something, but often simply admitting and justifying an unpleasant truth will yield more respect and cooperation than making it worse with condescension or spin.

Why isn't reasonable to believe this already? We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies)...

No, the lack of attacks after 9/11 has nothing at all to do with TSA policies. Rather, it's completely due to the Anti-Terrorist Spray I invented as a patriotic response to 9/11. I spray it in the air around my house every week, and it has obviously been highly effective at keeping terrorists away from the Homeland! The spray is actually a simple modification to my exclusive Anti-Elephant spray, whose efficacy is attested by the fact that no elephants have attacked me since I invented it. My statement makes as much sense as yours (i.e., not very much).

All kidding aside, there's no way to know whether or to what extent your policies have been effective in preventing a repeat of 9/11. I would be more inclined to believe that terrorists have moved on to other things, since the element of surprise is gone, cockpit doors are closed and hardened, and they know passengers stand ready to overpower anyone who tries something like it again. Unfortunately, even if the TSA has "effective policies" in place to react to 9/11, the possible London liquids plot, and Richard Reid's inept shoe bombing plot, they will provide no protection against whatever else al-Qaeda might be plotting. Indeed, if a terrorist plot ever does get to the point where it reaches a TSA checkpoint, the intelligence apparatus will have failed catastrophically.

...we're making huge leaps in technology that help accomodate passenger preference without sacrificing security (WBIs)...

Passenger preference? As in "do you prefer an electronic strip search or a groping from Bruno/Brunhilde?"

...we don't have the money to waste on policies that are simply for show

Maybe the Obama appointees will conduct an impartial cost-benefit analysis of your policies. That would be a good start toward improving confidence in your agency. I'm not holding my breath.

Looking forward to your response.

Always glad to oblige. (And I'm honestly impressed that you're attempting to offer more intelligent dialogue than your predecessors.)

November 6, 2008 12:03 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you're just going by historical data on terrorist attacks since 9/11 (none), you'll obviously come to the conclusion that we should take resources away from terrorist prevention."

Since nothing TSA does is "terrorist prevention," of course resources should be taken away from it. TSA has done nothing to make flying safer and much to endanger the lives and heath of the citizens it ostensibly serves.

November 6, 2008 12:09 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to the "Where are all the rules?" question that keeps coming up. Go here:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=c46e961521e215e640dc4e642149fe20&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv9_02.tpl#1200

Then look at all the rules under part 1500. For passenger related stuff, look specifically at 1540.


While you are there look at 1540.5 then explain to me why the TSA is knowingly and willingly breaking the law by using a forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area?

Do you really want the folks on this blog to start digging in the law? Think hard before you answer.

November 6, 2008 1:32 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Paul Not Bob said...
Anonymous said November 4, 2008 6:52 PM

"So,please be the first TSA blogger to explain the ban on tiny inch-and-a-half pocket knives when 4' sharp pointed scissors and metal knitting needles are allowed. And please don't just say knives are banned and "a knife is a kife is a knife." "

Yeah, that's a tough one. I'm not saying I agree with it (or disagree with it), but I think the reasoning might be something along the lines "A knife (by virtue of being a knife) is more overtly a weapon than a pair of pointed scissors less than 4'"

Think of it this way. Both knives and scissors can cut things, but knives are more versatile with this particular action. In a hypothetical scenario where there's a confrontation, what would be more dangerous, if I took a swipe at someone with a knife, or with a pair of scissors? Granted, both can be used in a stabbing motion, but so can pens and pencils. So we have to draw the line somewhere.

I hope that makes sense.

I take you have never dealt with a psychotic ex-girlfriend. I will take an inch and a half pocket knife any day.

November 6, 2008 1:41 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Paul Not Bob said...
Mr. Gel-pack November 4, 2008 8:28 PM:

On the breast milk issue, can you give me some more details about the situation?

On this issue:
"Would, as some people think, society be better off if the the 2,800,000 person hours per day that we spend on TSA was spent on knocking a few percent off of the 40,000 annual traffic fatalities rather than partially screening for a 1 in a billion dumb terrorist?"

I mean, there are too many unknown variables to work with there. If we were theoretically to redistribute 2,800,000 man hours to help out with annual traffic fatalities, which organizations would best make use of those man hours to help reduce traffic fatalities.

Also, what kind of traffic fatalities? I don't want to sound snarky (by the way, I have no idea where this word came from), but if you're asking me to tackle this from an economists point of view, I need to get really specific.

If we put all this aside, what kind of scenarios would your study cover? Just mid-air explosions(where life lost is almost definitely < 1000)? Or flying planes into buildings (where life lost could easily reach well into the 1000s).

If you're just going by historical data on terrorist attacks since 9/11 (none), you'll obviously come to the conclusion that we should take resources away from terrorist prevention. But that conclusion is kind of erroneous because one terrorist incident on a flight could easily cost 1000s of lives.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.


Aw damn looks like we have a live one here. Paul Not Bob, that was a good answer. Not saying I agree but it does show some snap.

November 6, 2008 1:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are snow globes banned, period, even if they are under the liquid limit? Show me one independent peer reviewed publication that you can bring a plane down with two miniature snow globes.

As for the option for securing luggage - it has been discussed here! Trollkiller and someone else suggested the perfect combination: personalized slips for the specific person who screened the luggage plus sealing/strapping the secure luggage after the screen. All that, under the watchful eyes of a camera and a second person.

November 6, 2008 2:52 AM

 
Anonymous CJ said...

Paul, I highly recommend you spend some time reading through the blog.

Your answers to the last few posts show that you don't really know what people are complaining about, or why, or why they're tired of the answers they get. Spend a day reading the blog, and you'll have a much better idea of what's going on.

November 6, 2008 5:01 AM

 
Anonymous Ronnie said...

Good luck Paul. Glad to have you aboard. I think it will be a plus to have an extra pair of hands around here to answer questions and keep the place more up to date.
And I look forward to your views since you are neither an insider nor an outsider.

Going back and reading the archives will no doubt be a big help to you. I have been doing that myself. It is really very illumnating.

I think the biggest problem you will face is that it seems that no mater what you do or say, you will NEVER be able to make most of these people happy. And I do in a way understand their frustrations since we TSOs cannot truely explain everything due to SSI, so we cannot make them see the point of what we do.

Hopefully you will have some luck.
Look forward to your posts.

Ronnie TSA DEN

November 6, 2008 6:33 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Eucher said:

"So guess what? My 16 oz bottle of water is NOT an explosive. My full size tube of toothpaste is NOT an explosive. So under these rules, you should allow me to take those items. Please show me in those rules, where it says I am NOT allowed to take water onboard an airplane."

No prob Bob...read this:

§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.

So, under that regulation, you...a regulated party under part 1540, cannot be present within the sterile area until you comply with the systems, measures or procedures being applied (that means screening for prohibited items...which includes the gels, water, etc.) to gain access to the sterile area of an airport. I hope that helps somewhat. Remember folks, everything, and I mean everything that TSA does is in the regulations. Look 'em up, read 'em and understand 'em. I have no law degree and even I get it.

November 6, 2008 8:40 AM

 
Blogger MarkVII said...

Paul said: "First, give me an example of an abusive TSO. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to get a better idea of what you're talking about."

There's a veritable treasure trove of examples in the old "gripes and grins" section of the blog, parts 1 through 3. That would be a good place to get a sense of the history of the issue.

When I have a bit more time, I'll repost my somewhat lengthy tale of good and bad experiences.

November 6, 2008 8:43 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Miller on November 5, 2008 8:12 PM

From our previous exchange:

Miller: When an item goes missing the airlines points at TSA while TSA points at the airlines. Where is shared responsibility for lost/damaged items?

Paul: What do you recommend? (Give me something beyond just: TSA should pay for it, because that's not really feasible).

Miller: Not my job to fix your problems. Both the airlines and TSA get a free ride because of the finger pointing.

First off, I'm glad we're having a dialogue here. I realize it's not your job, but since you're upset about this issue and took the time to comment, I figured you might have some ideas about who should be responsible.

I don't have any ideas on the matter other than installing security cameras at all security checkpoints to prevent theft from ever happening in the first place. Problem is, the airports themselves need to pay for that. So, it's kind of difficult to get this done--though cameras have been set up at a number of airports around the country.

Miller continues:
"Recently a DHS/TSA inspector used a TAT probe as a handle to haul himself up to the door on an aircraft. Upwards of nine aircraft were damaged during this jungle gym fiasco. Who paid to get the aircraft fixed?"

Not 100% sure, but I'll try and find out. Give me a bit.

Previously, Paul said:
"Here's what's being done. Go to www.tsa.gov. Find the "Got Feedback" button. Fill out all the relevant information on the page, and a Customer Service Manager (CSM) at that airport (where the incident occurred) will send you a response. We are keeping track of all compliments/complaints and CSM responses here at HQ."

Miller's response:
"Filled out one online and never heard back. Didn't expect anything else though."

Yeah, we're working towards 100% response rate from CSMs. It's only going to get better as we move forward with the Got Feedback program (which Blogger Bob and I are working on).

November 6, 2008 9:25 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Tomas on November 5, 2008 9:32 PM

Thanks for the comment. Just to clear something up though, I've been reading flyertalk (among many many many other sources) everyday since before I started working here, so I'm definitely able to cite examples of what Miller was talking about. It's just that sometimes on blogs, people have a certain incident in mind (which he did), so I wanted to tackle that incident specifically (read Miller's subsequent response about the TSO damaging American Eagle jets).

I wanted to do the same thing with Miller's comments about abusive TSOs. Again, fully aware that flyertalk (among other sites) address these issues on occassion.

On the locking luggage issue, I assumed we were talking about carry-on luggage only, so that's my fault.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks Tomas.

November 6, 2008 9:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said in part...."I don't have any ideas on the matter other than installing security cameras at all security checkpoints to prevent theft from ever happening in the first place. Problem is, the airports themselves need to pay for that. So, it's kind of difficult to get this done--though cameras have been set up at a number of airports around the country."
..............................
Paul, I have to disagree with you on this point.

TSA required access to checked baggage. TSA should ensure that baggage that has been inspected is safe from being tampered with after the inspection all the way until that baggage is returned to the owner. Otherwise the ability to insert something "bad" in the baggage exist along with the possibility of theft from the baggage by TSA or airline/airport employees. Chain of custody must be maintained or security has taken a a serious hit.

The cost of ensuring the baggage is not subject to being tampered with is the responsibility of the party who insist on inspecting the baggage. That would be TSA.

Closing this one loophole would solve several issues yet TSA thinks it is more important to buy "Play Cop" badges instead of doing things that actually improve security.

Priorities at TSA as skewed and until real security issues are acted on TSA will continue to fail in doings its task.

November 6, 2008 9:49 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

George on November 6, 2008 12:03 AM

Wow, big mistake on my part with my original response to you.

When I wrote:
"A better argument would be that long-term career federal employees are disconnected from the **government** (though I'm not saying they are). Doesn't that make more sense?"

I meant to say *public.* That was a typo on my part. So care to rework your response to my statement/question?

-----------------------
You went on to comment on my paragraph which stated:

"Perfectly reasonable comment. Basically what you're saying is that we need to convince the public that our policies are effective (which they are), less intrusive (that's the whole point of WBIs, i.e. no pat downs), and not simply for show (they're not)."

By responding:

"I'll give your bosses half a mark for spending some time on training you! But simply telling us (yet again) that your policies are effective, that virtual strip search machines aren't intrusive, and that your policies aren't just for show won't do anything to convince us. That's been the whole problem with this blog. Repeating the Party Line endlessly won't make it true! But you're quite right about what you need to do. It's not an easy task at all!"

I attempted to go beyond simply telling you these thing with my final paragraph in my orginal response to you (which you didn't really address at all):

"We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies), we're making huge leaps in technology that help accomodate passenger preference without sacrificing security (WBIs), and we don't have the money to waste on policies that are simply for show."

-----------

I know I haven't addressed everything but I'll get back to you later today.

- Poster Paul

November 6, 2008 10:29 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to refocus the discussion here. I'm doing my best to answer all of your questions even even if they're off topic (which I'm not supposed to do). let's try and focus back in on my blog post. That being said, I'll still attempt to answer all of your questions.

- Poster Paul

November 6, 2008 10:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, I noticed a couple of my post made today have not made it through so they must have been culled for some reason, however your post "Blogger Paul's Intro" does not have any on topic post other than to say Hi and such.

I know that what I posted might be a bit tough to swallow but the intent was to give you some background on what has already happened here and to focus my discontent with the TSA and this Blog. So again I say welcome, learn before speaking and hopefully you will have a positive impact here.

TSA has dug a hole so deep that to recover is a mighty task and I wish you well on your new career.

November 6, 2008 10:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said:

“Anonymous said...
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to the "Where are all the rules?" question that keeps coming up. Go here:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=c46e961521e215e640dc4e642149fe20&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv9_02.tpl#1200

Then look at all the rules under part 1500. For passenger related stuff, look specifically at 1540.

While you are there look at 1540.5 then explain to me why the TSA is knowingly and willingly breaking the law by using a forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area?

Do you really want the folks on this blog to start digging in the law? Think hard before you answer.”


I don’t have to “think hard” before I answer. The regulation is quite clear…please take the time to read the regulations, specifically this one:

§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

"No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter."

Furthermore, read the amendment to this section issued on October 28, 2008 which becomes effective December 29, 2008:

§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case.

You’ve already been told how 1540.107 applies to the ID requirement since that is part of a procedure/system being applied by TSA to control access.

Now, specifically December 29, 2008, it is spelled out, for people who don’t/can’t understand how ID check is part of a “procedure” utilized to grant access to a sterile area of an airport. It’s quite clear as currently written, but undeniable come 12/29/2008

November 6, 2008 12:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
So this would mean that no one is exempt from screening. Not TSA employees, not airline employees, and not airport employess except on a case-by case waiver.

A blanket waiver would not cover anyone person or group and would not be case-by-case at any rate.

So when will TSA start screening each and every person who enters the secure area by any means each and every time the enter the secure areas?

Seems TSA is in violation of its rules at this point!

November 6, 2008 2:00 PM

 
Blogger Alan said...

Welcome, Paul.

Back to the topic, what college did you graduate from?

Thanks.

November 6, 2008 2:07 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Cj on November 6, 2008 5:01 AM

Where exactly do you think I'm falling off here? Which comments in particular demonstrate that I don't have a grasp what people are complaining about, or why they're tired of the answers they get?

- Poster Paul EoS Blog Team

November 6, 2008 2:14 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Paul said...

Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to refocus the discussion here. I'm doing my best to answer all of your questions even even if they're off topic (which I'm not supposed to do). let's try and focus back in on my blog post. That being said, I'll still attempt to answer all of your questions.

- Poster Paul


Holy keyboard, I think we are witnessing the birth the dynamic duo of Blogger Bob and Poster Boy.

Assuming the roles of mild mannered cubicle dwellers Bob Bloggerson and Guy Posterman, this dynamic duo wages the never ending fight against the sinister forces of Pax and its Legion of Logic minions.

Armed with the Tie of Terror and the Sheepskin of Confusion they keep the airports safe from dihydrogen monoxide, anonymous travel, and snow globes.

In this episode Poster Boy discovers just how treacherous the Legion of Logic can be.

Poster Boy: "Hi guys"

Various Legion of Logic henchmen: "He works for King Kip, kill him", "fresh meat", "destroy".

A fight ensues with Poster Boy outnumber a hundred to one. "biff", "pow", "kaplowie".

Poster Boy: "Why didn't I stay in school?"

Will Poster Boy survive? Will Blogger Bob hear his cries of help?
Find out next time, Same Blog time, same Blog Channel.

Poster Boy, I hope you don't mind me having a little fun at your expense.

Please understand something about off topics posts.

Everything that is posted here that concerns the operation, management, policy and actual security issuses of the TSA is ON TOPIC.

We will not be steered or persuaded by "Puppy Posts". The regulars on this Blog are here not because we have nothing better to do but because we want change. We want real security without destroying liberty.

We are the conscience of the TSA. We keep this Government agency honest, or at least try to.

Kip did a commendable thing by creating this Blog and knowingly opening himself and the TSA to the harsh scrutiny and comments of public you serve.

Keep that in mind when deciding what goes to the shredder.

November 6, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Yet another Anonymous wrote...
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.

So, under that regulation, you...a regulated party under part 1540, cannot be present within the sterile area until you comply with the systems, measures or procedures being applied (that means screening for prohibited items...which includes the gels, water, etc.) to gain access to the sterile area of an airport. I hope that helps somewhat. Remember folks, everything, and I mean everything that TSA does is in the regulations. Look 'em up, read 'em and understand 'em. I have no law degree and even I get it.

________________

No, by what you just said, if TSA wanted all travelers to crawl through some new detector on their belly while naked, that would be just fine.

What you referred to is the overall instruction and permission in law for the agency to develop it's regulations and procedures that comply with that permission AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS.

What the folks here really want is to have the regulations we must follow, that were developed and committed to writing in response to that permission and in compliance with all other applicable laws, presented to us so that we can know what rules we must follow.

Simple.

If TSA were to create a rule that required every third traveler to strip naked for a full search in public, it would comply with what you quoted, but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it would also comply with other applicable laws...

Basically that short bit you quoted above does NOT say "we can do anything we want to" it actually says "we are only allowed by this law do anything that is provably necessary for security and complies with all applicable laws."

Just to toss in one last ridiculous "you can't do it even if you think that law says you can" example....

If some idiot came up with a plan to prevent repeat offenders by shooting anyone who failed to make it through the metal detector without a beep, it would comply with your interpretation of that law you quoted above, but it would not comply with all other applicable laws.

Got it?

Good. :o)

November 6, 2008 2:40 PM

 
Anonymous NoClu said...

So now it is codified that a U.S. Citizen must show ID papers prior to travel. Nice. I knew the current Administration was working hard to solidify positions or remove practices they don't like. This is just another nasty example.

ID does NOT equal security.

November 6, 2008 2:49 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

EoS blogger Paul wrote:

"Arbitrary rules? Nope, definitely not arbitrary."

Are we not required to follow rules created on-the-fly by your TSA bag checkers? Is enforcement of some rules (for instance, the one that says no liquids allowed past the checkpoint) left up to the discretion of those bag-checkers?

At 2008-08-20 13:19, I quoted Jim Huggins as having written:

"If [as TSO Dean stated] the actual rule is that all liquids are banned, but that 3.[0/4] ounces can be passed through as an exception to the rule, this means that I as a passenger am relying on the goodwill of the TSO at the checkpoint to grant me that exception."

I then wrote:

"Precisely, Jim. Furthermore, this means that we have a system that allows any one of thousands of TSA airport security guards to authorize passengers to disregard certain rules and carry banned items onto a flight.

"Feel safer yet?

"TSA: Why don't you just make a rule that says no one can pass your checkpoints, then authorize checkpoint agents to bend the rules as they please? You could end all of this pressure to tell us what the rules are if you simply made a rule that says we cannot fly, then ignored it. Isn't that what you're doing (on a smaller scale, of course) with the liquid ban?

"If your rules said that we can't fly, then your people could just make up any reason they find appropriate to stop whomever they like from traveling.

"Where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication."


As long as you refuse to do this, your rules are most certainly arbitrary.

--
Phil M
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net

November 6, 2008 3:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul: What do you recommend? (Give me something beyond just: TSA should pay for it, because that's not really feasible).
=======
If you will read through some of the other blogs you wil find that someone, I think trollkiller, has suggested a strapping system. A link is provided in that post.

It is easy to implement, cost effective and the items needed are already in use by thousands of companies.

Eric
one of the 5 or 6 who post here

November 6, 2008 4:07 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Phil on November 6, 2008 3:10 PM

If TSA officers created rules on-the-fly, then yes, the rules would be arbitrary. But they don't. That's why we have Standard Operating Procedures which were created using input from a variety of subject matter experts.

Now, if a TSA officer doesn't realize the rule is 3.4 and not 3, then that's an individual mistake, not an agency wide conspiracy to make people's lives difficult.

Also, in response to this:

"Where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint). Please provide a URL or name of the government publication."

I'm still working on it per my previous response to this same question.

Thanks Phil.

November 6, 2008 4:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said...
Cj on November 6, 2008 5:01 AM

Where exactly do you think I'm falling off here? Which comments in particular demonstrate that I don't have a grasp what people are complaining about, or why they're tired of the answers they get?

- Poster Paul EoS Blog Team

November 6, 2008 2:14 PM
===========
Paul one of the more obvious issues is how in various posts when people ask questions or comment and you respond with; "Can you please provide me with an example."

Many of the regulars have been here since day one and reffereing to past blogs. Please take a few hours and read the blogs, make some notes, and you'll find the examples. We all understand your new here, its time to do some home work before you become another "Chistopher"(read the past blogs you'll see what I mean).

Eric
One of the 5 or 6 who post

November 6, 2008 4:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an example of the luggage solution using a strapping machine.
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_200356873_200356873

Eric
one of the 5 or 6 who post here

November 6, 2008 4:18 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

TK wrote...
Holy keyboard, I think we are witnessing the birth the dynamic duo of Blogger Bob and Poster Boy.

Assuming the roles of mild mannered cubicle dwellers Bob Bloggerson and Guy Posterman, this dynamic duo wages the never ending fight against the sinister forces of Pax and its Legion of Logic minions...

________________

Heheheheheheheh... TK, I just came to your post from moderating over at SlashDot, and found myself wishing I still had some moderator points left to mod your post up. :o)

Thanks for the post, it was fun!

Tom (1 of 5-6)

November 6, 2008 4:18 PM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Eric on November 6, 2008 4:15 PM

My only problem with this is that I don't like making assumptions, so if they don't refer back to a specific post/comment/external website (like flyertalk), I'm going to ask for some clarification.

Hope that makes sense.

- Poster Paul EoS

November 6, 2008 4:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul,

Your responses so far almost mirror those of the blog staff in the few few threads of this blog. Therefore, my advice is to spend today reading the blog archives. Read every story, every comment, and every response (or lack thereof). This fight between the bloggers and posters has been going on for a long, long time, and repeating old arguments will not achieve anything new. Neither will getting snippy when people ignore you.

For example, consider your response to George:

"I attempted to go beyond simply telling you these thing with my final paragraph in my orginal response to you (which you didn't really address at all):

"We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies), we're making huge leaps in technology that help accomodate passenger preference without sacrificing security (WBIs), and we don't have the money to waste on policies that are simply for show.""


The reason the above paragraph was not addressed is because it was insultingly patronizing. Do you really think you're the first person to ever offer that argument? Do you think we're really stupid enough to believe it? Your argument's been made already, several times. It's been rejected, several times. I'm not going to dignify it by shooting it down again.

Read the archives.

November 6, 2008 4:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said...
Eric on November 6, 2008 4:15 PM

My only problem with this is that I don't like making assumptions, so if they don't refer back to a specific post/comment/external website (like flyertalk), I'm going to ask for some clarification.

Hope that makes sense.

- Poster Paul EoS
=======
Paul I am glad to see that you don't work under assumptions. It has been suggested several times now that you go back and read the past blogs, I would strongly urge you to do so. You will easily find many of things we are reffering to and should make you familiar with what has happened in the past.

If you can't make the time to do that, not everyone is going to be patient with you. We are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you need to do learn what has happened throughout this blog. Especially since it is part of your job. Please take the suggestions that some of the posters have made to heart. No one here wants you to be the next "Christopher".

Eric
one of the 5 or 6 who post here

November 6, 2008 4:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said...
Eric on November 6, 2008 4:15 PM

My only problem with this is that I don't like making assumptions, so if they don't refer back to a specific post/comment/external website (like flyertalk), I'm going to ask for some clarification.

Hope that makes sense.

- Poster Paul EoS

November 6, 2008 4:19 PM

I don't feel that it is our task to educate you since you missed the first two acts of the opera.

As many have suggested read, learn and understand what has already happened. Your not making any points so far!

November 6, 2008 4:55 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

There is, however, a catch-all exception in the published TSA information that specifically allows TSOs to make up and apply rules on-the-fly...

See this TSA public document which says in part:
________________
Permitted and Prohibited Items
The prohibited and permitted items list is not intended to be all-inclusive and is updated as necessary. To ensure traveler's security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.

________________

I'm sure you will admit that the above permits any base level TSO to override the TSA's published guidelines, and place their individual "judgement" over higher-ups who developed those guidelines.

What is especially nasty about that is THERE IS NO APPEAL FOR THOSE DECISIONS except to the TSO's immediate supervisor, and it has been shown in numerous first-person examples in this blog and in other examples in national media that the supervisor will often back their employee even when they are obviously and demonstrably wrong (see Mr. Gel-Pak's original posts to this blog for an excellent example).

Yes, one can fly to one's destination having "voluntarily surrendered" one's personal property (or not flown), then submit a complaint to the TSA, but that personal property has already been lost and is not recoverable even if the TSA does say "Sorry, we were wrong to do that."

Oftentimes this is merely a small monetary loss to each of the travelers so affected, but at times it was a vital item that was needed on the trip or is something unique and therefore not replaceable at any price.

When a traveler is repeatedly told not to put valuable items in checked luggage, but to keep them with them, and those same items appear on the published TSA documentation as permitted to carry on board, having a TSO change the rules on-the-fly with no viable recourse available to the traveler, something is wrong and absolutely needs to be fixed.

Tom (1 of 5-6)

P.S. Please notice also that the document referenced is yet another that is in error saying that liquid containers can be no more than 3.0 ounces even thought the document was published more than a year after that was changed to 3.4 ounces (100ml).

November 6, 2008 4:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a regular here and you guys are being very vague about old post. Why not just post the link, comment, and date.

Here is link syntax

Date and Time is posted below every comment.

Don't be lazy if you want someone to answer a question.

Besides... in most cases if you return to that thread you will find that further down someone has answered your question.

November 6, 2008 5:30 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Tom said...

Welcome Paul. As you can see by the comments in this thread so far, you've got your work cut out for you. ;-) Some posters have legitimate concerns, and others just twist your words to suit their purposes. But for the most part they all have one thing in common....change. They want change within TSA, and sometimes change is a good thing. So welcome again, and keep your head up, the days and weeks ahead will keep you very busy.

TSO Tom
PHL

November 6, 2008 7:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, why did you delete-o-meter my post stating that 1 pair of scissors = two knives?

November 6, 2008 8:06 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Am I to understand that you and Bob are the only two Blog Ops now?

Are the other names on "Meet the Bloggers" defunct?

I hope not, Christopher still has a few shots coming as does Nico, who if I remember correctly told us how the MMW WBI images are so tame that they are suitable for young children yet when challenged to have his family imaged flatly refused. Yep he needs more time in the barrel also.

Paul I hope you see the light sooner rather than later and if you want to stay in government service find a suitable position in another agency before your background is scared for life. Your already damaged goods in the private sector.

November 6, 2008 8:13 PM

 
Anonymous miller said...

Paul,

As another poster put it, TSA is responsible for any luggage loss due to the fact that TSA prohibits (with very few exceptions) passengers from properly securing their luggage (cut locks anyone?).

TSA refuses to accept responsibility for those loses. The airlines points at TSA and says 'your luggage wasn't secured' and gets a walk for responsibility/liability issues.

The strapping of luggage would go far in resecuring passengers luggage. It won't be done though due to NIH(not invented here) and it being too expensive and time consuming to do. It also would force TSA to admit there were unintended consequences to passengers being forced to leave their luggage defenseless.

Your employer doesn't like public embarrassment.

As a frequent traveler (flights at least 2x/wk 49 wks a year) I've witnessed some TSOs on a power trip, barking orders at passengers, illogical actions covered up by 'security concerns,' abuse of the elderly, children, disabled, some of which personally happened to me.

Here's some things you can try doing. Pack your bags for a week long trip. Put your laptop and camera into your checked baggage. Leave your driver's license at home and get a round trip ticket for a two night stay in a town where you have no friends or family to help you. Arrive at your destination, get your checked baggage and notice that you no longer own either that laptop or camera. Tell us of your experience of flying without a driver's license. Tell us who replaced your laptop and camera. Tell us about your trip. Now try doing that with your leg in a cast. Tell us how your coworkers at TSA treated you.

November 6, 2008 9:46 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

I attempted to go beyond simply telling you these thing with my final paragraph in my orginal response to you (which you didn't really address at all)

Paul, I actually did address that paragraph, point by point. The response may have been more flippant than you'd like (though I believed it was appropriate), but I did respond.

I know I haven't addressed everything but I'll get back to you later today.

Which you didn't do. I hope it's because you're too busy reading all the earlier posts and comments on this blog. And then I hope you're compiling summaries of them into a spreadsheet so you can affinitize them, see the "heavy hitters" and the patterns, and then use the data to give your bosses a reasoned summary of our most important and persistent concerns. That's something realistic and useful that you actually can do for us. It will also benefit you by impressing your bosses with your thoroughness, eagerness, and initiative-- even if, as always, they ignore the actual substance of what you've summarized.

But I want to address a particular theme in your response to my comment, since it reflects a fundamental problem with this blog and with the TSA. It concerns your paragraph that you said I didn't respond to at all: We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies), we're making huge leaps in technology that help accomodate passenger preference without sacrificing security (WBIs), and we don't have the money to waste on policies that are simply for show.

You have clearly bought into what seems to be a basic assumption of your agency, one that informs every official post on this blog. You operate under the assumption that the effectiveness of the TSA's policies is an indisputable fact. Accordingly, you respond to our comments with arguments that build from this indisputable fact, in this case that the lack of further terrorist attacks is the direct result of the effective TSA policies (a paraphrase of your own statement). But apparently you're unable to deal with people who don't accept the effectiveness of TSA policies as indisputable fact. That probably accounts for the antagonism you'll see if you read the archives.

It reminds me all too much of the arguments I used to have with religious fundamentalists (including atheists, by the way). Everything they said derived from their belief that the Bible was the True Word of God (or the "obvious fact" that God doesn't exist). Their statements were, for the most part, logical and well-reasoned derivations from those assumptions. But they were completely illogical and even silly if you didn't start with the assumption that what they were saying is inherently true. What I see from the TSA is pretty much the same concept: The TSA policies are all necessary and effective, so any reasonable person would accept them rather than endlessly complaining. But the salient difference, of course, is that the religious proselytizer can quote the appropriate chapters and verse in Isaiah or Bertrand Russell to prove his point, and we can read it for ourselves. But when pressed, the TSA can only say that "it's classified SSI, but if you knew what we know you would agree that it's all necessary and effective." Unless you already believe that the intelligence is "robust," that's a far less effective argument than "this passage of Ezekiel is the True Word of God," since we're at least allowed to read what Ezekiel actually says (and possibly even in the original Hebrew).

As I've said before, we the Traveling Public would be more than willing to do whatever your bosses decide is necessary to protect aviation and the Homeland. But that's only if we have confidence that the intrusions and sacrifices they ask us to make are justified and effective. That confidence has to be earned rather than imposed through fear and bullying. And simply telling us repeatedly that "the policies are effective" isn't going to earn that confidence (even if the policies are effective). Especially when the statements come from an administration with such a dismal track record of intelligence blunders (e.g., the failure to catch bin Laden), incompetent handling of crises (e.g., Katrina), deceptive misuse of intelligence (e.g., the nonexistent WMDs and shifting rationales for invading Iraq), and a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law (e.g., signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo). And particularly when every audit or inspection from the GAO or Inspector General shows that the TSA is ineffective in detecting harmful contraband (irrespective of their effectiveness at finding and confiscating oversize shampoo bottles).

I'm afraid that I can't avoid bringing up politics here because it's plain to me that much of the TSA's public relations problems come from the top. Yes, the arbitrary rules and the arrogant minority of TSOs give reason to question TSA's policies, but ultimately those policies are a reflection of the Executive Branch that established them. The TSA's problems are inseparable from those of the rest of the Bush administration, which has the lowest approval rating of any administration in history. That's really at the root of the public's lack of confidence and trust in the TSA.

The screener at the checkpoint who arbitrarily decides to confiscate a one-ounce bottle of sunscreen properly placed in my one-quart ziplock because it's not in the manufacturer's labeled container (which has happened to me, even though there's no published rule requiring a manufacturer's labeled container) is merely reflecting what has been flowed down to him through the Homeland Security bureaucracy from the Oval Office: "We're above the law, and the War Power gives us absolute authority to arbitrarily decide what we do, what laws we follow and which ones we ignore." The difference between ignoring the requirement to get a warrant before wiretapping and confiscating a bottle of sunscreen that complies with published rules (but apparently not the secret unpublished ones, or ones he or his supervisor made up today) is only a matter of scale and effect. And in both cases, they're asking us to accept on unquestioning faith that it's necessary and effective. But if I take the time to learn and comply with the published rules, and the screener punishes me anyway for violating some unpublished rule, how can I possibly have any trust or confidence in the TSA or in anything its representatives tell me?

I can only hope that the change in administration will produce a different attitude and approach at the top, which will eventually trickle down to the TSA. While I can't at all be certain that such beneficial change will happen, I do suspect that a more trustworthy administration at the top will benefit the TSA by making the task of earning public confidence easier.

November 7, 2008 12:00 AM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Paul: regarding my wife crying over spoiled milk, here you go, or here. Or many more through google magic.

I understand TSA will never be able to replace the milk. What I don't understand is that TSA seems like it will never fix the root causes: not properly training your personnel to know your own rules, poor documentation of (effectively) secret rules, both internal and external.

TSA seems proud that it is not sharing its real rules with the public, which will inevitably result is mistakes like this. As I said in my second post on the loss,
if TSA can't even do the small tasks of management right (training your rules-enforcers to know your rules) why should we trust TSA on anything?


On risk analysis and cost benefit analyses, the burden is on TSA to justify itself. Your bloggers and TSOs try to justify any level of inconvenience with the fiction that they save thousands of lives every day. There is always a cost in security tradeoffs like this, and it seems that TSA doesn't even try to do the math. You say there are too many variables and it is too hard. If it actually does analyses, TSA, in the name of security, hides its data, and then expects us to trust it.

Making 2,000,000 people per day spend an extra hour on security theatre has a significant cost, which ends up measurable in lives, not just minutes. Economists do do these analyses: "Driving Fatalities After 9/11: A Hidden Cost of Terrorism", "The Impact of Post 9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel".

Back of the envelope, anyone can take the 2,000,000 passenger hours and 100,000 TSA employees or so and know we spend 2,800,000 person-hours per day on security. That's 319 person-years, or 4.5 life-expectancies you folks are spending every day. How many lives are you saving?

If TSA is all about saving lives, the BTS has fatality statistics which show there's a lot more opportunity for saving lives on the road than in the air. If spending TSA's budget on road safety saved 10% of those fatalities, we would have saved a 9/11 worth of people every year. How many 9/11s worth of terrorists do you catch each year?

On the other hand, if you are going to try to count preventing 9/11-style disasters on the benefit side of TSA screening, you need to discount your rad life-saving skills for the effects of non-screening controls like armored cockpit doors, changed hijacking policies, situationally alert crew and passengers, and your imperfect detection rates. Letting 50% of the boxcutters onto the planes won't fly planes into buildings, they'll just get a few nutcases pummeled and sat-upon, like we've seen.

So, is TSA worth the cost? Kip seems like he's just blowing smoke, and TSA is all security theatre.

Can you folks do something more than holler "9/11" like chicken little? You've already lost my trust.

November 7, 2008 2:30 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

I don’t have to “think hard” before I answer. The regulation is quite clear…please take the time to read the regulations, specifically this one:
§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.
(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching under §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case.

You’ve already been told how 1540.107 applies to the ID requirement since that is part of a procedure/system being applied by TSA to control access.

Now, specifically December 29, 2008, it is spelled out, for people who don’t/can’t understand how ID check is part of a “procedure” utilized to grant access to a sterile area of an airport. It’s quite clear as currently written, but undeniable come 12/29/2008


I wish to thank you for providing information about this law change. One would hope the TSA would put all its ducks in a row BEFORE implementing anything that may be against the law or is against the law as the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area.

Yep that’s right kiddos, close but no cigar. Still illegal, but a very nice first attempt. You would think that after having 6 months to work on it they would have gotten it right.

Excuse the long list of laws below but they are important to this issue.

Title 49 §1560.3 definitions state:
Full name means an individual's full name as it appears on a verifying identity document held by the individual.

Verifying Identity Document means one of the following documents:
(1) An unexpired passport issued by a foreign government.
(2) An unexpired document issued by a U.S. Federal, State, or tribal government that includes the following information for the individual:
(i) Full name.
(ii) Date of birth.
(iii) Photograph.
(3) Such other documents that TSA may designate as valid verifying identity documents.

Sterile area means “sterile area” as defined in 49 CFR 1540.5.


Title 49 §1560.105
(c) Request for identification —(1) In general . If TSA has not informed the covered aircraft operator of the results of watch list matching for an individual by the time the individual attempts to check in, or informs the covered aircraft operator that an individual has been placed in inhibited status, the aircraft operator must request from the individual a verifying identity document pursuant to procedures in its security program., as provided in 49 CFR part 1544, subpart B or 49 CFR part 1546, subpart B. The individual must present a verifying identity document to the covered aircraft operator at the airport.

(2) Transmission of Updated Secure Flight Passenger Data . Upon reviewing a passenger's verifying identity document, the covered aircraft operator must transmit the SFPD elements from the individual's verifying identity document to TSA.

(3) Provision of Passenger Resolution Information . If requested by TSA, the covered aircraft operator must also provide to TSA the individual's Passenger Resolution Information as specified by TSA.

(4) Exception for minors . If a covered aircraft operator is required to obtain information from an individual's verifying identity document under this paragraph (c), and the individual is younger than 18 years of age and does not have a verifying identity document, TSA may, on a case-by-case basis, authorize the minor or an adult accompanying the minor to state the individual's full name and date of birth in lieu of providing a verifying identity document.

(d) Failure to obtain identification . If a passenger or non-traveling individual does not present a verifying identity document when requested by the covered aircraft operator, in order to comply with paragraph (c) of this section, the covered aircraft operator must not issue a boarding pass or give authorization to enter a sterile area to that individual and must not allow that individual to board an aircraft or enter a sterile area, unless otherwise authorized by TSA.


Title 49 § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.

(b) An individual must provide his or her full name, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, date of birth, and gender when—
(1) The individual, or a person on the individual's behalf, makes a reservation for a covered flight, as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, or
(2) The individual makes a request for authorization to enter a sterile area.

(c) An individual may not enter a sterile area or board an aircraft if the individual does not present a verifying identity document as defined in §1560.3 of this chapter, when requested for purposes of watch list matching UNDER §1560.105(c), unless otherwise authorized by TSA on a case-by-case.


The definition of a sterile area in Title 49 § 1540.5 has not changed and neither has the definition of screening.

Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.

Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.


All I am required to do by this new set of laws is to STATE my name, birth date and sex as it appears on a Verifying Identity Document

I know you are saying “whaaat?”, so let me walk you through this. According to the new 1540.107 I must provide my name if I am making a reservation OR if I request access to the sterile area. Waiting in line to be screened for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as provide for by 1540.5 would be sufficient to be called a request.

I MUST show my ID ONLY when requested FOR the PURPOSE OF watch list matching UNDER §1560.105(c).

As you can clearly see above §1560.105(c) states that the party I am REQUIRED to show my ID to is an AIRCRAFT OPERATOR as defined by 49 CFR part 1544, subpart B or 49 CFR part 1546, subpart B.
The TSA is NOT an aircraft operator.

November 7, 2008 5:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Miller said in part....

Here's some things you can try doing. Pack your bags for a week long trip. Put your laptop and camera into your checked baggage. Leave your driver's license at home and get a round trip ticket for a two night stay in a town where you have no friends or family to help you.
.............................
Excellent idea! How about a solid month on the road. Test the system, present with no ID, with ID, make a last minute change of destination so you get the SSSS.
Bend the rules a little, comply fully with the rules. Just be sure that no one knows your TSA.

Then get back to us on your experience. Heck, a month bumming around the country should be fun anyhow.

November 7, 2008 9:09 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

George on November 7, 2008 12:00 AM

Yes, you did address my final paragraph, but you conveniently separated it from your previous point that all I did was tell you that our policies are effective, that they're less intrusive, and that they're not simply for show. I just wanted to draw your attention to that. And I don't care if comments are flippant (which I don't think any of yours have been thus far).

I apologize that I didn't get back to you later yesterday, but keep in mind I do more here than just moderate the blog. But the spreadsheet thing is a good idea.

Concerning the points you've raised about my paragraph: "We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (effective policies)..."

You state that I: "operate under the assumption that the effectiveness of the TSA's policies is an indisputable fact."

I just want clear something up. I completely agree with you: the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is not indisputable evidence that the TSA's policies have been effective, but they probably have something to do with it. If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again? From a statistician's standpoint, if an empirical study were done about all operations conducted by DHS (and all other organizations that assist with terrorism prevention), then you'd probably find that the TSA is part of the equation, and not the entire reason why another 9/11 hasn't occurred.

I'd like to weigh in on your points about religion and politics, but I'm not allowed to. (This is a common policy for the workplace in both the public and private sector)

- Poster Paul EoS Blog Team

November 7, 2008 9:39 AM

 
Blogger Paul said...

Mr. Gel-pack on November 7, 2008 2:30 AM

Economist analysis links you provided are really interesting, and I'm going to take the time to read them today.

The first three links you provided are broken though.

You say:
"If TSA is all about saving lives, the BTS has fatality statistics which show there's a lot more opportunity for saving lives on the road than in the air."

The flaw in your thinking here is that more fatalities = more opportunities to save lives. Just because there are more fatalities doesn't mean there are more opportunities to do something about it. It's a little more complicated than your making it out to be.

On your paragraph:
"Back of the envelope, anyone can take the 2,000,000 passenger hours and 100,000 TSA employees or so and know we spend 2,800,000 person-hours per day on security. That's 319 person-years, or 4.5 life-expectancies you folks are spending every day. How many lives are you saving?"

I don't even know where to begin on this one. With this logic, anyone who works is effectively "dead" for however many hours they work in their lifetimes.

- Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team

November 7, 2008 9:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again?"

The reason terrorists haven't tried again is because cockpit doors are now secured in a way they weren't before 9/11, and because airline procedure is no longer to cooperate with hijackers in hopes of an eventual peaceful resolution. That's it. NOTHING TSA does makes flying more secure. Your agency is a colossal waste of time and a disgrace to the country. Shame on you for terrorizing Americans.

November 7, 2008 10:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want clear something up. I completely agree with you: the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is not indisputable evidence that the TSA's policies have been effective, but they probably have something to do with it. If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again?

..................................
Paul, if terrorist tried the same thing again they would not be successful. Not because TSA is on the job but because other things have changed.

Aircraft cockpit doors are hardened.

The policy of cooperation with hijackers/terrorist has been changed.

Passengers would attempt to take control of the situation.

TSA's procedures may add to the overall security but at what cost?

Travelers are not happy. TSO's just don't know their jobs in many cases.

Peoples property is forced to be surrendered (confiscated) if a traveler wishes to make scheduled connections even though the items meets all requirements to travel.
There is zero recourse or challenge possible at TSA checkpoint. Property is lost and not replaced even when TSA is in the wrong.

TSA has enabled the theft from checked baggaged by demanding access and not ensuring the baggage is secure after inspection.
TSA approved locks are a joke! Security of baggage after inspection is a joke. To many sticky fingers, TSA and Airport employees are making a nice living pilfering peoples luggage.

The travel document and ID requirments reminds one of East Germany.

TSA can play pretty music, have nice lighting and any number of other things but it does not change the fact that TSA has erroded freedom in America!

Keep in mind that the Germans played pretty music while millions were killed in death camps.

November 7, 2008 11:02 AM

 
Anonymous NoClu said...

"I don't even know where to begin on this one."

How about beginning here then...
2,800,000 hours per day = 350,000 work days = 1590.9 work years (@220 days per year) of time spent on security theatre in the course of a single day. That’s a lot of time/energy spent DAILY.

I think the previous poster was saying that, if you took even a portion of the time now spent by the TSA looking for water bottles and unlabeled sunscreen tubes, you could have measurable impact on the number of traffic fatalities that occur each year on the nation’s roads.

November 7, 2008 12:24 PM

 
Anonymous Platfuse said...

Interesting Article which got spiced up with the comments.

November 7, 2008 12:43 PM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Paul said...

Mr. Gel-pack on November 7, 2008 2:30 AM

Economist analysis links you provided are really interesting, and I'm going to take the time to read them today.

The first three links you provided are broken though.

########################


Hmm, the first two worked last night, and I was almost impressed that you bloggers figured out how to enable links to specific comments, but now that doesn't seem to work. The third link to google still works today in my Firefox. In any case, my initial posts on the confiscation of my gel packs were on the this thread, search for 'gel'. I've also posted my story each time some TSO says we'd have no problems if us dumb passengers simply followed the common-sense rules.

@"The flaw in your thinking here is that more fatalities = more opportunities to save lives. Just because there are more fatalities doesn't mean there are more opportunities to do something about it. It's a little more complicated than your making it out to be."

It is also more complicated than TSA's simplistic "9/11, therefore, trust us" justification. The flaw in that logic is that it isn't logic at all, it is just assuming the conclusion. Premise-wise, the TSA seems to have unrealistic estimates of how much value they can deliver, as compared to the fuzzy estimates of hazard: your 1000+ lives per event, Bob's "entire economy", and the TSO's who think that if TSA saves even just one life, it will all be worth it. There were several fixes that society and the airlines implemented that significantly reduces the impact of hijackings, armored cockpit doors, not cooperating with hijackers are a couple. Does TSA improve on that? Or, does TSA just push the mythical terrorists to attack somewhere else, like the crowded checkpoints?

As for not knowing were to begin, the main problem in doing multiobjective risk analyis is determining the tradeoffs between the variables as you choose different policies. It may be unpalatable to do the analysis, but when someone makes a policy decision, they are actually choosing a tradeoff between objectives, whether or not they do the numbers. TSA is forcing society pay a terrorism tax of 2,800,000 person-hours per day, balanced against the marginal improvements in TSA's fluffy estimates of lives saved. We already know TSA is trading labor for 'security', so lives and time are commensurate in your decision space. As the old joke goes, we already know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price.

We could be doing an awful lot of good with these 2,800,000 person-hours per day. Is TSA the best place to spend it?

November 7, 2008 12:44 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

I apologize that I didn't get back to you later yesterday, but keep in mind I do more here than just moderate the blog. But the spreadsheet thing is a good idea.

Not a problem, so no apology is needed. I do very much appreciate that you did respond when you had time, and that you're engaging us in a rational and respectful discussion. Irrespective of whether it produces any tangible change or benefit, it's a significant improvement over what I've seen here before!

If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again?

My honest answer to that is is "I don't know." Which is an important point: Yes, you [the TSA/DHS] "did [something] with airport security." You indisputably made it more inconvenient, intrusive, and costly (in time and liberties as well as direct dollars). What is disputable is whether that "something" is effective at preventing terrorist disasters, and particularly whether the costs (again, in time and liberties as well as direct dollars) justify whatever claimed protection the "something" provides. In other words, is the TSA giving the taxpaying public value for money? If the answer is yes, most of us would be willing to bend over backwards (or whatever other humiliating indignity you might decide is necessary) to cooperate with you in protecting aviation. If the answer is no, we're going to do everything we can to make you stop wasting our time and money and sacrificing our liberty, dignity, and privacy.

Since so much of the data necessary to do that analysis is apparently classified, it's not possible to do that analysis. So we can't make a rational judgment from facts and data. That leaves us to either accept on faith your [the TSA's] continuing assertions that the policies are effective, or to reject those assertions. If you read the archives, you'll see that we have many reasons to reject those assertions. Your daunting task is to give us reasons to accept them, in the absence of (classified) facts and data (or cost-benefit analysis).

Getting back to "do[ing] anything with airport security," it appears that the TSA's "new" system is pretty much the same thing we had on 9/11. It relies on the very same mass screening with x-rays and metal detectors. But it's "enhanced" with new restrictions on shoes and liquids (which mostly replaced earlier restrictions about scissors and screwdrivers)-- to which you will soon be adding virtual strip searches (as a "more palatable" alternative to old-fashioned groping). And those "enhancements" are always in reaction to a breach or plot, which by definition means you're always one step behind the terrorists. The "unpredictability" that Kip touts as a "strategy" most likely confuses and frustrates innocent passengers far more than any would-be terrorists.

BDOs could be a genuinely innovative improvement in theory. But many of us question whether one week of training is sufficient to enable BDOs to reliably identify subtle signs of "terrorist intent" in a crowded room full of highly-stressed and possibly very angry people. TSA press releases regularly report "successes" in identifying drug smugglers, mentally ill people, and even a man wearing a fake military jacket. But if you read the blog comments you'll see that many of us regard those highly-touted "successes" as nothing more than false positives (which anyone other than the TSA would consider "failure" rather than "success"). And we're definitely not going to eagerly embrace something that seems more likely to hassle us with many false positives than to actually save anyone from a terrorist act.

Any of these are reasons to doubt the effectiveness of TSA policies, and whether the "something" you're doing actually protects aviation.

I'd like to weigh in on your points about religion and politics, but I'm not allowed to.

I know that. My intent wasn't to start a discussion of religion or politics. I'm merely pointing out that the problems (and discontent) you're attempting to address are systemic and go far beyond the TSA.

November 7, 2008 1:24 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Paul writes:

I completely agree with [George]: the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is not indisputable evidence that the TSA's policies have been effective, but they probably have something to do with it. If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again?

Actually, no. Because, in my uninformed opinion, a terrorist would be much more likely to use a different tactic. After all, we'd already seen the techniques used on 9/11, and we'd be preparing for such an attack. A terrorist would be much more likely to try to attack in a different way ... exploiting a security vulnerability that hasn't been widely disclosed or used yet. (If I'm gonna rob a bank, I'm not gonna try to rob the one that was robbed last week, with all the cops hovering around.)

Paul continues (in response to Mr. Gel-Pack):

The flaw in your thinking here is that more fatalities = more opportunities to save lives. Just because there are more fatalities doesn't mean there are more opportunities to do something about it. It's a little more complicated than your making it out to be.

With respect ... I don't think you're looking at the whole picture that Mr. Gel-Pack is citing. Consider the following "facts" (which might be disputable, I'll concede):

* Some people have chosen not to fly post-9/11, instead choosing to drive to their destinations.

* One reason cited by those choosing to drive is dissatisfaction with the passenger screening process.

* The number of people who die each year due to travel by plane is far, far less than the number of people who die each year due to travel by automobile.

When you put those facts together, one conclusion that could be drawn is this: TSA passenger screening is leading to more fatalities, not less, because it encourages people to take riskier forms of travel.

This is not an unusual analysis. I saw an analysis some time ago about infant car seats in airplanes. There was a proposal floating around that would've required all infants to ride in approved car seats on airplanes. It was ultimately dropped, because it was felt that requiring infants to have their own seats (and thereby a plane ticket) rather than lap-sitting would have increased the cost of travel enough that some families would choose to drive rather than fly, and flying (even on a lap) is much safer than driving.

No-one is disputing that there have been no airline hijackings since 9/11. What is a legitimate matter of debate, however, is whether the particular methods TSA uses are effective --- especially when considering the entire picture.

November 7, 2008 2:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul said in part......
"I just want clear something up. I completely agree with you: the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is not indisputable evidence that the TSA's policies have been effective, but they probably have something to do with it."

That position is not supported by fact. TSA would like to believe its procedures have prevented an attack but cannot prove anything TSA has done has in fact prevented anything.

Has anyone attempted an attack via airplane in the US since 9/11?

Has an attack plan been identified and halted by TSA since 9/11?

I'm willing to review any evidence that TSA has been showing success.

Until such evidence is provided I conclude that TSA has only hampered air travel in this country.

November 7, 2008 3:02 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

EoS blogger Paul wrote:

"If we didn't do anything with airport security after 9/11, do you honestly think that terrorists wouldn't try the same thing again?"

Aside from securing cockpit doors and changing passengers' attitudes against fighting back (which both provide real security enhancements), yes, I honestly believe that such a crime (assuming we even know what really happened, which is unlikely, given the fact that investigators say that they were misled and that their investigation was flawed), would not have been likely to recur even if TSA had not begun its airport dragnet operations.

Paul, please take a step back and consider what you mean when you say "terrorists". A large portion of your adult development (I'm making some assumptions about your age based on the fact that you recently finished college) happened during a time when Americans were kept constantly frightened by the threat of bogeymen while a group of opportunistic traitors transfered an enormous amount of wealth to their friends, committed numerous war crimes in an effort to extend the reach of the American empire, and nearly ran the nation into the ground. Is that not obvious yet?

Seven years ago, people were so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution has been subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous to the average person than was Communism during the Cold War.

--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net

November 7, 2008 5:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, Thank you for at last acknowledging my repeated question regarding tiny knives and attempting to answer it. Your answer sounds like your personal opinion, however, and I am trying to learn TSA's official position and reasoning on the matter. There are so many actual and potential weapons in airplane cabins now-think oxygen bottles used as clubs, broken wine bottles from 1st class used for cutting and stabbing, shoelaces turned into garrotes for example- that it really makes no sense to ban what at most could cause an annoying scratch. Remember, I'm referring to the smallest Swiss Army knife with the toothpick, scissors, nail file and tweezers which is a grooming accessory and simply not a weapon-for cutting, stabbing or anything else. The ban is illogical and it's time for TSA to admit it.

November 7, 2008 6:29 PM

 
Blogger SLWatson said...

If I'd known about this blog sooner, I'd have commented sooner.

I'm a U.S. citizen in excellent standing. I've never been given anything harder than a traffic ticket. I've only flown four times in my life, and two of those times were when I was three. I'm polite, I never take anything out on anyone; I'm pretty much your average Midwesterner.

Portland Maine's TSA staff when I went through there on September 16th was extremely rude. Not only did they call me an idiot, for some reason I can't even fathom, but they did the same with another woman who had simply forgotten to take her ID out of her coat. I could understand if this were a very busy day, perhaps, or if this woman had been rude in turn -- we're human, we get frustrated. But neither she nor I were. Yet, we were both treated terribly by a younger blonde girl and a college-aged guy, both wearing your badge.

I can't fathom how this could ever be considered acceptable behavior. I don't mind the screening, I don't mind taking my shoes off, I don't mind them looking through my bags. But I do mind being called names, and I certainly mind the lack of common courtesy. I observed these same people treating others abruptly, ignorantly and otherwise.

Contrasted to the wonderful treatment I received from TSA at JFK on in the late morning of the 13th of September (Delta's terminal), and I was flabbergasted.

If you want to know the details, the Portland Jetport incident was on September 16th, 2008, flight number 3763, U.S. Airways to LaGuardia at 1:44 PM. I would venture to say that I was there about an hour early.

The word is that you actually do read and pay attention to this blog, and I never did find a way to file a complaint otherwise, nor did I have time to talk to this woman's supervisor. But I would hope that someone would call Portland and tell them to please stop being rude to people, especially when there was no cause.

Thank you.

November 8, 2008 1:55 AM

 
Anonymous John Alex said...

Paul,

As another poster put it, TSA is responsible for any luggage loss due to the fact that TSA prohibits (with very few exceptions) passengers from properly securing their luggage (cut locks anyone?).

TSA refuses to accept responsibility for those loses. The airlines points at TSA and says 'your luggage wasn't secured' and gets a walk for responsibility/liability issues.

The strapping of luggage would go far in resecuring passengers luggage. It won't be done though due to NIH(not invented here) and it being too expensive and time consuming to do. It also would force TSA to admit there were unintended consequences to passengers being forced to leave their luggage defenseless.

Your employer doesn't like public embarrassment.

November 8, 2008 2:22 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Yet another Anonymous wrote...
The reason terrorists haven't tried again is because cockpit doors are now secured in a way they weren't before 9/11, and because airline procedure is no longer to cooperate with hijackers in hopes of an eventual peaceful resolution. That's it. NOTHING TSA does makes flying more secure. Your agency is a colossal waste of time and a disgrace to the country. Shame on you for terrorizing Americans.

I would beg to differ in one minor point there.

TSA CAN make a difference by doing what they were originally instructed to do by keeping firearms, and explosives out of the passenger cabin and cargo spaces.

If TSA were to concentrate on that and the passengers on ensuring their own safety if/when threatened, the risk would be much reduced over not only 9-11, but over the nearly one hundred years of commercial flight that came before...

I believe passengers would give a better accounting of themselves than most did on 9-11, though we still have a culture that is unused to and uncomfortable with self protection.

Thing is, we need to start defending ourselves even in our everyday lives. We can't tell the bad guys to wait until the police show up, we need to do the job ourselves, then tell the police what went down when they finally show up. (I've legally carried a concealed firearm for over 35 years, I've trained with it, and I WILL defend myself, my loved ones, and those around me from danger to the best of my ability.)

We are in a society where you can depend on the pizza arriving in under 30 minutes more than we can depend on the police arriving... This is even more true, of course, in the air.

TSA was given a simple and very direct assignment to keep bad THINGS off planes, the passengers need to understand that it is THEIR responsibility to handle bad people, if and when...

Of course I'm obviously flailing away at a long dead horse here, but SOMETHING needs flogging! Possibly with the changing of the guard coming up in January (or shortly thereafter), we will get a new horse. :o)

Tom (1 of 5-6)

November 9, 2008 9:13 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Tony said...

Paul,

Welcome. I will offer a suggestion: see if your bosses will let you take the time to go through the TSO's BST course, OJT at BWI or DCA, and actually spend some time - even a day a week - as a working TSO. With respect, I have a BA in political science from one of the top 10 programs in the country, I am a co-owner of a small marketing/PR firm, and yes, I have been a serving TSO, assistant training instructor, and now BDO, for just over two years. There's a lot to be said for the outside perspective you bring, and I think your ability to understand the mission would be rounded by working a few hours each week as an officer, with other officers who do the job every day. You could do much to help bridge the gap between both "sides."

Again, just a respectful suggestion.

November 10, 2008 1:48 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

John Alex said...

Paul,

As another poster put it, TSA is responsible for any luggage loss due to the fact that TSA prohibits (with very few exceptions) passengers from properly securing their luggage (cut locks anyone?).

TSA refuses to accept responsibility for those loses. The airlines points at TSA and says 'your luggage wasn't secured' and gets a walk for responsibility/liability issues.

The strapping of luggage would go far in resecuring passengers luggage. It won't be done though due to NIH(not invented here) and it being too expensive and time consuming to do. It also would force TSA to admit there were unintended consequences to passengers being forced to leave their luggage defenseless.

Your employer doesn't like public embarrassment.


I feel like I have to defend my luggage strapping idea. I am afraid if we keep repeating the falsehood of "high cost and time consuming", the TSA policy makers will not do a true cost/benefit analysis.

This inexpensive $5,000 strapping machine does 30 cycles per minute. Even assuming 2 straps per bag, the throughput would be 4 seconds per bag. If the strapper were placed inline behind the x-ray the time consumption would be negligible based on the fact it should take much LONGER than 4 seconds to screen a bag.

The cost factor is also negligible if you want REAL security and not theater.

The unit above is a one time cost around $5,000. Strapping is approximately $80 a roll for 18,000 feet. Assuming 6 feet of strap per bag one roll will do 3000 bags. Each bag would cost less than 3 cents in strap. Add in electrical costs and maintenance cost.

The total to SECURE a bag against tampering and molestation would be less than 5 CENTS a bag.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am willing to pay a nickle per bag to keep sticky fingers and God forbid nefarious people out of my bag.

November 10, 2008 11:39 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Blogger Bob or Poster Boy,

Do us a favor and see if Francine or Kip would make a new entry regrading the updated laws and the legalities of the forced ID verification.

As you can see by my above post dated November 7, 2008 5:11 AM, it appears the updated laws do NOT give the TSA the statutorily legal right to demand an ID as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.

November 10, 2008 12:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TK said in part...."I feel like I have to defend my luggage strapping idea. I am afraid if we keep repeating the falsehood of "high cost and time consuming", the TSA policy makers will not do a true cost/benefit analysis."

TK, what I fail to understand is why TSA continues to allow a security flaw this big to go uncorrected.

Does TSA want real security or just a show of security.

I think your solution has merit and until something else is proposed that is better think immediate implementation of your plan should begin.

November 10, 2008 12:26 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Tomas said...

Yet another Anonymous wrote...
The reason terrorists haven't tried again is because cockpit doors are now secured in a way they weren't before 9/11, and because airline procedure is no longer to cooperate with hijackers in hopes of an eventual peaceful resolution. That's it. NOTHING TSA does makes flying more secure. Your agency is a colossal waste of time and a disgrace to the country. Shame on you for terrorizing Americans.

I would beg to differ in one minor point there.

TSA CAN make a difference by doing what they were originally instructed to do by keeping firearms, and explosives out of the passenger cabin and cargo spaces.

If TSA were to concentrate on that and the passengers on ensuring their own safety if/when threatened, the risk would be much reduced over not only 9-11, but over the nearly one hundred years of commercial flight that came before...

I believe passengers would give a better accounting of themselves than most did on 9-11, though we still have a culture that is unused to and uncomfortable with self protection.

Thing is, we need to start defending ourselves even in our everyday lives. We can't tell the bad guys to wait until the police show up, we need to do the job ourselves, then tell the police what went down when they finally show up. (I've legally carried a concealed firearm for over 35 years, I've trained with it, and I WILL defend myself, my loved ones, and those around me from danger to the best of my ability.)

We are in a society where you can depend on the pizza arriving in under 30 minutes more than we can depend on the police arriving... This is even more true, of course, in the air.

TSA was given a simple and very direct assignment to keep bad THINGS off planes, the passengers need to understand that it is THEIR responsibility to handle bad people, if and when...

Of course I'm obviously flailing away at a long dead horse here, but SOMETHING needs flogging! Possibly with the changing of the guard coming up in January (or shortly thereafter), we will get a new horse. :o)

Tom (1 of 5-6)


You forgot incendiaries. ;-)

You are not flogging a dead horse, this is not about some useless internet debate but value for OUR monies spent.

You can buy the strongest door in the world, but if you leave the windows open it does no good for security.

If the TSA stuck to the mandate in Title 49 1540 with the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, instead of Constitutionally questionable and statutorily illegal practices, the security would increase while cost would decrease.

The horse is not dead, so keep beating it until it gets up and walks right.

BTW I get the naming rights on the new head of the TSA. Until then I will call him/her "Not Kip".

November 10, 2008 12:27 PM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

In regards to your graphic, illustrating how the difference between checkpoint evolution and non-checkpoint evolution is like a stormy nnight and a clear, calm day, I have to put some hard numbers on it.

Assuming the shark fin is a maneater-sized 1 foot, the waves in the storm look like they are about 2 feet high, while in the "after" picture, the undulations look less than a inch. From a signal-detection point of view, it looks like the first situation has a 0.5:1 signal-to-noise ratio, and after your improvement, the signal-to-noise ratio goes to 12:1, or a 2400% improvement.

As someone who was once paid lots of money to design visual inspection systems, I think claims of that level of improvement for visual inspection systems is bogus. The pictures look like pure photoshop mockups for a consultant's brochure, rather than anything real. If some consultant tried to sell their equipment or program with a presentation like this, they ought to be kicked out of the office. Bad-photoshop-wise, with waves in seas like in the first picture, that shark fin would be 1-3 meters high, and 6-18 meters long. And in the second picture, the shark would have to be dead to make no ripples.


Applied to the many passengers you have to visually inspect each day, even a bogus 24X improvement wouldn't be sufficient to raise a 1 in a billion terrorist above your normal false-positive rates as applied to 2,000,000 passengers per day. See the atlantic article, your take here, for one example of not treating something out of the ordinary with 24 times the attention.

November 10, 2008 1:29 PM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Tom@ "Of course I'm obviously flailing away at a long dead horse here, but SOMETHING needs flogging! Possibly with the changing of the guard coming up in January (or
shortly thereafter), we will get a new horse. :o)"

Heh. Well, this horse keeps perking up and saying "I'm not dead yet," no matter how much it stinks at catching fake terrorists.

November 10, 2008 1:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So um... yea. Just so you know strapping a bag will not make the bag secure. That is funny post. Thanks for the laugh. Strapping can be removed without a knife as well. Also if someone wanted something out of your bag then a lock may not even prevent that. It is a bag with a zipper which is not hard to break into.

November 10, 2008 2:19 PM

 
Blogger MarkVII said...

Paul said: "Yeah, that's a tough one. I'm not saying I agree with it (or disagree with it), but I think the reasoning might be something along the lines "A knife (by virtue of being a knife) is more overtly a weapon than a pair of pointed scissors less than 4'"

Sounds like a good working theory to me, but (no disrespect to your reasoning skills here, just the rules themselves) a little light on rationality. IMHO, the prohibition against small knives is based more in emotion ("that's what they used on 9/11") than in true utility.

As others have pointed out, between the hardening of the cockpits, and the fact that neither aircrew nor passengers will cooperate with hijackers, the "no knives" rule is pretty much pointless now. (no pun intended)

I'm an Airborne veteran, and can turn a boot lace into a lethal weapon, and don't forget good old-fashioned hand to hand combat. There's even a common condiment that I can turn into an low grade incendiary with one additional ingredient and no fancy preparation required. Realistically, if I went over to the dark side and had my Leatherman Micra tool in my pocket, that would be the least of anyone's worries.

Something to keep in mind -- a weapon that doesn't overtly look like a weapon can convey the element of surprise for an attacker, yet the TSA often focuses on "obvious" weapons, such as knives.

Another thing to keep in mind -- the TSA's track record of silly prohibitions lessens its credibility on questionable prohibitions. Here's my favorite examples:

1) The no-tools-rule becomes the "no eyeglass repair kits" rule, never mind that gift shops in the sterile areas of some airports were selling them.

2) The no-sharp-edges rule becomes the "no nail clippers" rule.

As I've pointed out in prior posts, what's the real world security risk posed by either item? "Give me control of this plane, or I'll disassemble your glasses and mess up your manicure?" This came across as bureaucratic nonsense, IMHO.

Though this situation was eventually addressed, in the meantime there rules made the TSA look really silly. Unfortunately, the TSA has this track record of focusing on certain specific items (such as the days of the no-lighters rule) where the danger posed by the item is real, but more theoretical than practical.

Finally, here's where I'm going with all this -- I think the TSA needs to look at its various prohibitions in light of "what is the real world risk". Too often, enforcing the silly rules consumes time and energy that could be put to better use, such as providing appropriate security for passenger's belongings as they go through the aviation system, screening cargo, monitoring the individuals in the sterile area that have access to aircraft, etc.

November 10, 2008 4:08 PM

 
Blogger MarkVII said...

Hi Trollkiller --

I, for one, think your strapping idea is fantastic, so keep putting it forward. It dovetails nicely with the ideas put forward of having the TSA inspector's name and badge number, along with the date and time on any TSA "loves notes" left in the bag. That addresses the issue of any TSA inspector becoming the prime suspect in baggage theft.

I'm really tired of good ideas getting summarily shot down with a glib assessment of "not feasible" -- tired of hearing what can't be done. Your "back of the envelope" analysis shows your idea is entirely feasible.

Unfortunately, the TSA's fondness for "flashy" changes (such as the new checkpoint design), vs. substantive, systemic change, feeds my perception that a lot of the changes are for show.

Keep up the good posts....

November 10, 2008 4:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW I get the naming rights on the new head of the TSA. Until then I will call him/her "Not Kip".

November 10, 2008 12:27 PM



Mondo! i.e. Blazing Saddles

November 10, 2008 4:37 PM

 
Blogger MarkVII said...

Hi Paul –

Going back to your request to ”…give me an example of an abusive TSO”, I’ve dug up one of my previous posts, submitted anonymously at the time. These were posted under “gripes and grins” earlier this year.

I recognize that this post is rather lengthy, so if you’d rather not re-post this tome, I’ll understand. If you do delete-o-meter it, though, I’d appreciate it if you’d just put a short message in the thread that you saw it.

To set the scene, these predate the “new, improved” checkpoint, and are from the early days of the blog.

A couple of things to keep in mind --

We’re normally occasional flyers, but ended up flying several times in a seven month period ending in February of this year. One challenge with occasional flyers is, after a bad experience, the opportunity to replace it with a good experience may not come for a while. Something else to keep in mind is a basic principle of human relations – it takes three to five positive experiences to offset the effects of one negative experience. It doesn’t help that the negative experiences came after the initial positive ones.

Another thing is the recurring request for definitions of ‘liquid, gel or aerosol’ and some relevant examples on the TSA Web site. Those comments were based on the state of the TSA web site at the time, which was really light on operational definitions of ‘liquid, gel or aerosol’, and a major point of contention for a lot of folks. Those terms are better defined now, though the updates were a long time coming, and it took a lot of contentious discussion to get the updates.

On with the examples…

Flint MI, Story #1

My girlfriend (hereafter referred to as Heather) and I are going through security. Bags go through x-ray, and I hear the infamous call for "bag check".

We walk up to the tail end of conversation between another passenger and the screener. Both are rather brusque with each other in their tone. Passenger leaves. Screener comments loudly to another screener about how rude that last passenger was to her. (I'm thinking that the screener's tone with that passenger set no example of politeness. Neither did loudly making that comment in public.) Screener starts to look in my girlfriend's carry on, and here's the dialog from there.

Screener: Are any "liquids gels or aerosols" in the bag?

Heather: no

Screener: Is there anything metal in the bag or anything I might poke herself on?

Heather: (holds hand above bag, and points to rear pocket) There's a nail file in that back pocket.

Screener: (yelling) DON'T TOUCH THE BAG WHILE I'M SEARCHING IT !

Heather: I not touching the bag. I'm just pointing to the pocket where my nail file is. I don't want you to get stuck.

Screener: (yelling louder) DON'T TOUCH THE BAG WHILE I'M SEARCHING IT !

Heather: Fine, whatever. (puts her hands at her side.

Screener: (after encountering a tube of lipstick, yelling) THIS HAS TO BE IN YOUR ZIPLOC BAG.

Me: (thinking to myself -- a lipstick has a fixed volume and shape. From what I learned in school, that makes it a solid. No point, however, in arguing semantics of states of matter with a power happy ignoramus.)

Heather: Fine, I'll put it in there. (Starts to put lipstick in her ziploc, which was pretty full.)

Screener: (no longer yelling, but with obvious smug satisfaction) Your ziploc has to be able to close. (obviously thinking "gotcha")

Me: I've got plenty of room in mine. (I place lipstick in my ziploc, close the top, and hold it up for screener to see. My turn to think "gotcha".)

Screener: (Walks away without saying a word.)

Two major comments:

1. The yelling was totally unnecessary and unprovoked. We were being cooperative and trying to play the game by the rules.

2. Heather was concerned by for the well-being of the screener, as evidenced by wanting to make sure she didn't get poked by the nail file. The screener reacted by yelling.

3. As I have said in prior posts, the TSA needs to stop throwing "liquids, gels and aerosols" around like a catch phrase and define what this means in real world terms. I have yet to find a definition on the TSA web site, and have yet to see a link to an official definition on this blog. (TSO NY has posted his thumb rules, but has yet to provide a link to where they may be found for all to see.)

4. If the screener is done with you, they should yet you know that in a definitive manner. (Similar to the phrase LEO's use, "you're free to go.") Just walking away is rude.

5. Less cattiness at the checkpoint, please.


Flint MI, Story #2

I was the first of four passengers in line. Count them 1-2-3-4. The screening area at this airport has very little background noise. I already had my plastic bins on the table, my notebook PC in a bin, my regulation ziploc in the bin and was starting to take off my shoes. The people in line behind me were doing similarly. Obviously, we all "knew the drill."

The screener / wannabe drill instructor started barking orders. "TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES AND PUT THEM IN THE BIN. PUT ANY NOTEBOOK COMPUTERS IN A BIN. KEEP YOUR BOARDING PASS AND PHOTO ID IN YOUR HAND AT ALL TIMES."

Comments on this one:

1. Did the screener really expect people to remove footwear, pull out notebook PC's, pull out ziploc bags, handle bins, etc. one handed in order to keep their boarding passes and photo id in their hand at all times? What is that supposed to accomplish, anyway?

2. What's wrong with a simple request to "please have your boarding pass and photo id in hand as you approach the metal detector"?

3. How about passengers with mobility, strength, or balance issues? For example, there's absolutely no way my Dad could take his shoes off one handed, standing on one foot. I see no accommodation at this checkpoint (or others for that matter) for the elderly, infirm or physically challenged in getting in or out of footwear. Can't the TSA afford a few chairs?

4. Is it necessary to yell at four people in a fairly quiet area? The screener only needed to be heard over a distance of ten feet max. A normal conversational voice will carry that far.


Orlando FL

Screening area is a large open space, and acoustically, it's an echo chamber. PA is blaring endlessly saying to "keep control of your luggage to prevent introduction of prohibited items", interleaved with announcements of the terror alert level de jour.
Screener is shouting something in such heavily accented English that passengers couldn't understand a word being said. We could see her gesturing and pointing in an angry manner, presumably trying to direct traffic, obviously irritated that the passengers weren't doing what she wanted.

Comments on this one:

1. Why do the announcements have to go non-stop ? Put some space in between announcements to lessen the overall noise level.

2. What difference does it make to me whether it's a yellow day or an orange day, anyway? What's the point of the announcement, anyway, since we're supposed to just "be about our lives"?

3. If a TSA person can't speak English clearly, they have no business getting irritated with passengers who don't understand whatever she's shouting. Time for ESL and / or accent reduction training.


Pensacola FL

Heather and I are going through security together. I start the bags through the x-ray, and screener #1 calls for a bag check on one of Heather's carryons. She goes on through the metal detector to resolve the situation, while I hang back to make sure our stuff gets into the x-ray OK (especially not wanting to let my notebook PC out of my sight). Here's the dialog from there:

Screener #1: (pulls a tube of mascara out of carryon, starts yelling) THIS HAS TO BE IN YOUR ZIPLOC BAG.

Me: (I'm through the metal detector and join Heather. Screener #1 has left to go look at the x-ray machine as more bags come through.) Are we done?

Heather: I'm not sure. She made it sound like they want to re-xray my bag without the mascara. I don't want to just walk away if they're not done.

Me: Yeah. Don't want to give them any excuses.

Screener #2: (Walks behind us, and bellows out) THE LINE IS BACKING UP. EXPEDITE GATHERING YOUR BELONGINGS AFTER THEY GO THROUGH THE X-RAY MACHINE. (He shoots a look of contempt at us and continues to where screener #1 is at the x-ray machine)

Me: (I catch the eye of screener #3, who is standing to the side wearing blue gloves and doing nothing. He immediately looks away and stares into space.)

Me: (Quietly to Heather.) Let's get out of here. That guy wants people to expedite gathering their stuff, so I'll take that as our cue to leave.

Me: (Projecting my voice straight at screener #3) Since he left, I guess they're done with us. Let's get out of here.

Screener #3: (No response. Continues to stare into empty space.)

Comments:

1. Again, no effective definition of "liquids, gels or aerosols".

2. Screener #1 yelled when a normal tone of voice would have gotten the job done. I could hear her yelling from the other side of the metal detector.

3. Screener #1 gave no clear indication that we were free to go, and we didn't want to look like we were trying to sneak away. The thanks we got for trying to cooperate was screener #2 yelling orders, when he could have asked us if there was a question or problem. You don't have to yell when you're standing beside us, and spare me the dirty looks.

4. Screener #3 was less than ten feet away when Screeners #1 and #2 were yelling, so he had to know what was going on. By avoiding my gaze, he gave the impression that he did not want to help.

5. When I got home and was looking in my bag, I found a 1 oz tube of sunscreen in my carryon that Screener #1 had missed. So much for their self-righteous attitude. If minimal contents of a tube of mascara is such a threat to aviation security, that's nothing compared to a 1 oz sunscreen tube.

6. Again, the yelling was totally unnecessary and unprovoked. We were being cooperative and trying to play the game by the rules.


Atlanta GA

Acoustics similar to Orlando -- noisy echo chamber. Same announcements going nonstop, too. Big crowds -- it's a few days after Christmas.

I walk up to the person checking id's. She doesn't say a word, and just glares at me with a major league scowl on her face and a look of utter hatred in her eyes. I say hello, then hand her my passport and boarding pass. She looks at them and silently hands back. Thinking "if you see a person without a smile, give them one of yours", I wish here a happy new year. No response, and no change from scowl.

As I head towards the screening lines, there a person there attempting to direct traffic. He looks pretty frazzled, but I couldn't blame him, under the circumstances. At least he isn't yelling. I wish him a happy new year, and he smiles.

In line, there's a screener shouting at the passengers, but I couldn't understand him over the general bedlam. Since the people in front of me were doing the usual drill with shoes, ziplocs and computers, I did the same.

Screener at metal detector checks my id and boarding pass without saying a word. I wish him a happy new year -- no response. Talk about being treated like cattle.

Get to concourse, and there's a lengthly pre-recorded announcement playing about the 3-1-1 requirement.

Comments:

1. This is the typical "treat passengers like cattle" situation. Even if you're going to have a distant manner, don't look at me with a look of utter hatred. If you don't like checking ID's, get another job. If I greet you, respond -- that's ordinary courtesy.

2. Same comments as Orlando regarding terror alert de jour announcement and keeping control of your bags.

3. Seems silly to have an announcement going about 3-1-1 after everyone has already been through security. Talk about shutting the door after the horse has left the barn !


And now on a positive note

Flint MI, Story #3

This was one of my first flights post 9/11 and before 3-1-1. Still a bit nervous about flying again. (I didn't fly for two years after the attacks.) I get to the checkpoint, empty my pockets into my carryon, take off cell phone, etc. Here's the conversation from there:

Screener #1: (Leans across the table, and looks at my footwear.) Sir, you should probably take those boots off so we can x-ray them. They might have metal shanks.

Me: They don't have metal shanks -- I've seen them with the soles off at the cobbler shop.

Screener #1: It's easier if you go ahead and take them off. If you set off the metal detector, we'll have to x-ray them anyway.

Me: Makes sense. No problem.

Metal Detector: BEEP.

Screener 2: Sir, do you have anything metal on you?

Me: Nothing that detaches. (I grin widely to show my braces.)

Screener #2: Sir, if you'd step over here please. (Points to mat with two yellow footprints on it.)

Screener #3: Sir, if you'd stand on the footprints and hold your arms out to either side.

Me: Sure thing.

Screener #3: (Starts wanding me. As he goes over my right shin, wand give off a little "beep".)

Me: I've got a surgical screw in that shin. It helps hold my knee together.

Screener #3: (Keeps wanding.) OK, thanks. We may have to come back and hand check that.

Me: No problem.

Screener #3: (Keeps wanding. As he goes over my left wrist...)

Wand: BEEEEEEP

Me: That's my bone-headed mistake for the day -- I forgot to take off my wrist watch.

Screener #3: (Pulls my sweater sleeve up and sees it's a watch, and smiles.) No problem. (keeps wanding.)

Screener #3: (Finishes wanding.) Thanks for your cooperation, and have a good flight.

Me: Thanks. Have a good evening.

Comments:

1. First and foremost, note the courteous and respectful tone in the screeners' manner. No yelling, and I hadn't been addressed as "sir" that many times in one conversation since getting out of the Navy.

2. Despite my dumb mistake, the screener was nice about it. No public ass-chewing in front of everyone else.

3. Note that when I questioned the need to take off my boots, the question was answered politely.

4. All in all, a very positive experience. The screeners had a job to do, no doubt, but were able to do it cordially.


Flint MI, Story #4

Another post 9/11 and pre 3-1-1 flight. That trip, I decided to fly in a polo shirt, walking shorts and sneakers. Nothing metal in my footwear, and my right shin is in the open in case that screw trips the metal detector. Remembered to take my watch off that time. I'm approaching the metal detector. Here's the conversation from there:

Screener: Sir, you should probably take those sneakers off.

Me: There's nothing metal -- they won't trip the metal detector.

Screener: True, but you'll have to go through secondary screening if you leave them on, and then you'll have to take them off there so we can x-ray them.

Me: (In a puzzled tone.) OK, but what's the issue with my sneakers?

Screener: It's the thickness of the soles.

Me: The Richard Reid scenario?

Screener: Exactly.

Me: Aha! Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

Screener: You're welcome.

Comments:

1. Again, note the courteous and respectful tone in the screener's manner and response to my questions.

2. I learned something about the requirements that day.

3. Notice what was missing from the response to my questions -- no authoritarian attitude, no threats, etc.

November 11, 2008 7:42 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Poster Boy,

I really would like a response to my analysis of the new and improved Title 49 §1540.107 and its relationship to the fact that under Title 49 §1560.105(c) I am required to show my ID ONLY to an aircraft operator, NOT a TSA representative.

"Mongo only pawn... in game of life."

November 12, 2008 1:15 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

So um... yea. Just so you know strapping a bag will not make the bag secure. That is funny post. Thanks for the laugh. Strapping can be removed without a knife as well. Also if someone wanted something out of your bag then a lock may not even prevent that. It is a bag with a zipper which is not hard to break into.


The point of the strapping is not to make the bag theft proof. The only thing that can do that is to hire honest people to staff the airlines and the TSA. History shows that to be unlikely.

The point of the strapping is to;

1) show a bag has been through security, if a piece of luggage makes it to the plane unstrapped it needs to be flagged for a secondary screening.

2) Make it more difficult for sticky fingers to steal valuables, in order to keep the strap in place to avoid detection a thief would have to open the zipper and then take the time to "go fishing". Blind fishing would take a lot longer than just opening the bag and removing an item. If the luggage is segmented the compartment below the zipper would be "safe".

3) If the strap is has been removed it would provide a visual indication that the bag has been tampered with, allowing the owner of the bag the opportunity to inspect the bag and report any losses while still at the airport. A missing strap would also indicate where in the chain the bag was tampered with, providing an important clue to investigators as to where the crime took place.

Any cop will tell you there is no way to stop a determined thief but, anything that increases the amount of time it takes for that thief to reach his goal increases the probability of capture.

I can break almost any deadbolt with a pair of Vice-Grips and a flat head screwdriver. You still should have them on your doors because it takes longer than just turning the knob to gain entry.

I think the only reason why the strapping machine is not getting a green light is the fact it was not presented by a salesman in a high dollar suit and it does not have a nifty scientific sounding name that can be rendered into initials. The Government does love its initials.

I propose we start calling the strapping machine a linear parallelepiped securement device. Of course making it a LPSD will increase the cost.

November 12, 2008 2:25 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

So um... yea. Just so you know strapping a bag will not make the bag secure. That is funny post. Thanks for the laugh. Strapping can be removed without a knife as well. Also if someone wanted something out of your bag then a lock may not even prevent that. It is a bag with a zipper which is not hard to break into.

With respect, you're missing the point.

Right now, I have to give my unlocked bags to TSA. Between when I give my bags away and when I pick them up at my destination, both TSA and the airlines have control of my luggage, at different times.

If something is stolen from my baggage, I have no recourse. The airlines will say that someone at TSA stole my items; the TSA will say that someone at the airlines stole my items. (As media reports have shown, both the TSA and airlines have employed people who steal from luggage.) Since both point their fingers at the other, both can duck responsibility, and I'm out of luck.

Now, suppose that TSA secures my bag with a Trollkiller Strapping Seal (TM) after they finish inspecting it. If I get to my destination, and something is missing from my bag, I have an idea who to blame. If the seal is still intact, it was a TSA theft. If the seal is not intact, it was an airline theft.

And now I have a chance of getting someone to reimburse me for my loss ... which might make both agencies a little more eager to prevent those losses in the first place ...

November 12, 2008 3:13 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Tony said...

Trollkiller,

The strapping device sounds worth further review. I also really like Abelard's idea from a month or so ago about decoy bags, both at the ckp'ts and for baggage. We use decoy bags for training - there's no real reason not to use them for integrity issues. Bottom line, every honest TSO has nothing to fear, and everything to gain from either idea - in the form of no hits to trust and buy-in from the public when a black eye like the thefts at EWR happens to us.

November 12, 2008 6:33 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

TSO Tony said...

Trollkiller,

The strapping device sounds worth further review. I also really like Abelard's idea from a month or so ago about decoy bags, both at the ckp'ts and for baggage. We use decoy bags for training - there's no real reason not to use them for integrity issues. Bottom line, every honest TSO has nothing to fear, and everything to gain from either idea - in the form of no hits to trust and buy-in from the public when a black eye like the thefts at EWR happens to us.


Do me a favor if you support this idea, log onto your internal Idea Factory site and advocate for it. I know the honest TSOs get tired of being blamed for airline employee theft and they get tire of being blamed for TSO theft.

Explain to the higher ups that the strapper will not be a burden to use and the positive PR effect, not to mention the positive security effects will be worth the low price of implementation.

November 13, 2008 2:29 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Hello Blogger Paul,

It does look like you are making a good faith effort to answer as many questions as possible. That being the case, I would not mind if you looked at my question on the new MMW technology. I gave greater details in the last entry in August and the first entry in September, but here is the essence of my question:

What is the legal and constitutional basis for conducting MMW scans on people not attempting access to the sterile or secure areas?

November 13, 2008 7:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Ayn,

Paul hasn't piped up on this thread since last week. Maybe he doesn't know about the new policy that the old threads are supposed to be current.

November 14, 2008 11:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, thank God you arrived. Bob could use a break from getting kicked in the chops everyday.

November 15, 2008 11:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naw, Paul sat down and read the past comments. After reading the comments he's decided to find employment elsewhere. Something about not wanting to be the frog in a blender.

November 16, 2008 11:02 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess they are done here. Maybe there's a new policy we don't yet know about, and all our new postings should be on one of the top two threads. Or on the 6 month old post of the day. Or in our own blogs or secret diaries.

November 17, 2008 12:31 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home