TSA on 60 Minutes
TSA and aviation security was featured in a 60 Minutes segment with Lesley Stahl last night. Transportation Security Officers LaDonta Edwards (BWI airport) and Gary Wilkes (DCA airport) were interviewed along with TSA Administrator Kip Hawley.
We gave CBS an inside look at TSA’s new training for all officers designed to calm the checkpoint, better identify threats and improve security by changes in how officers engage passengers. Our officers appreciated the time spent talking with Ms. Stahl, and she was certainly surprised to learn that one of the strangest things officers had seen come through the X-ray machine was a baby in an infant carrier. (Seems some people take the “Never wake a sleeping baby” mantra a little too seriously.)
Ms. Stahl had access to the TSA Operations Center, also known as the Freedom Center. This is our main information center, where analysts monitor the entire transportation network and connect TSA with the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Aviation Administration, FBI, and other law enforcement and security agencies. It is the kind of place you would hope exists in the post 9/11 world.
During an airport visit, Ms. Stahl and Kip Hawley operated the multi-view X-ray machines at BWI and saw how the improved technology helps officers find suspect items by highlighting areas of concern on the screen. While in the remote viewing location for the whole body imager, Ms. Stahl was surprised to see that it was not the “pornographic” image she thought it would be.
The piece also includes Bruce Schneier, security expert (and blogger) who calls some of TSA’s measures “security theater.” We agree with Bruce’s comments in the piece about terrorists being able to change their tactics every time something is banned or receives added scrutiny (guns, box cutters, liquids, shoes, etc.). That’s why we’re using new officer training and technology to be more proactive and going after hostile intent through the use of Behavior Detection Officers. These officers are trained to look for involuntary behaviors people trying to evade security display and can distinguish them from the behaviors of the average frazzled passenger late for a flight.
We understand that some checkpoint security measures annoy many Americans, but because of the intelligence information gathered from around the world, TSA deems these measures are necessary. We appreciate any opportunity to highlight our officers, enhance public understanding about why we do what we do, and show what motivates us every day in order to keep air travel safe.
To see the 60 Minutes segment, click here.
Ellen Howe
Guest EoS Blogger
posted by Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team at
3:17 PM
Subscribe in a reader
142 Comments:
We understand that some checkpoint security measures annoy many Americans, but because of the intelligence information gathered from around the world, TSA deems these measures are necessary. We appreciate any opportunity to highlight our officers, enhance public understanding about why we do what we do, and show what motivates us every day in order to keep air travel safe.
To see the 60 Minutes segment, click here.
Ellen Howe
Guest EoS Blogger
...................................
Ellen, most people know that some form of security is required in today's world. However, when a significant part of the traveling public protest certain procedures then that means that the need for the procedure is not well understood, has not been communicated to the public well or is like many of us believe, nothing more than "smoke and mirrors".
Not helping the situation is the continued actions of TSO's who treat people poorly as noted in the news report on Dallas NBC 5 recently and theft from checked baggage by any source when traveling.
Continuing the problem is the uneven enforcement of policies by TSA at the nations airports.
Finally, dissatisfaction is further increased by TSA putting its collective nose in places it does not belong.
The 60 Minutes report did not help TSA's lack of acceptance by the public but did highlight a growing distrust of an out of control public agency that will be forced to listen to the citizens of this country or forced to disband from its present form.
Perhaps new leadership at TSA will address these issues, lord knows the current leaders are deaf!
December 22, 2008 4:15 PM
Do you then disagree with Bruce Schneier's other comments?
I think he calls most of TSA "security theatre":
"Everything else – all that extra screening, those massive passenger profiling systems – is security theatre."
(Schneier's post in response to 60 minutes' story.)
December 22, 2008 4:17 PM
Embarassed again....
"They are trying to kill us"... what? Who? When the TSA goes on about the FAKE terrorist boogeyman threat, you lose ALL credibility.
"They will do it as many times as they can".... yes they will, except for the fact that they are dead. All 19 of them... every single one of them.
There just isn't a real threat. This is a waste of my tax dollars fighting fake threats.
Shameful.
-Steve
December 22, 2008 4:26 PM
So....
Are any of the TSA people here actually going to respond to Bruce Schnieir's comments? He is, in my mind, DEAD ON AGAIN. Absolutely right he is.
You can spend money and resources on this imagined threat, and that imagined threat. You can spend just infinite amounts of money on it.
The proof is in the pudding, and I have yet to see the TSA produce an ounce of pudding for all of the money we have thrown at it.
I mean seriously.... if 0 planes are attacked every year, and we prevent all 0 of them.... how do we prove that what we did actually prevented the attacks as opposed to well... there just being no attacks?
-Steve
December 22, 2008 4:32 PM
Can you please elaborate on Kip's comment re: 2 suspicious fliers in the air at the time of the taping? How did they get in the air in the first place if the TSA had 'interest' in them? Did one of Kip's layers fail? Given that they were clearly in the air, what was the viewer supposed to take away as the TSA's response to this 'threat'?
December 22, 2008 5:19 PM
That’s why we’re using new officer training and technology to be more proactive and going after hostile intent through the use of Behavior Detection Officers. These officers are trained to look for involuntary behaviors people trying to evade security display and can distinguish them from the behaviors of the average frazzled passenger late for a flight.
So how many false positives do you have? Angry or upset passengers are a pretty common occurrence and just because a passenger looks suspicious doesn't mean a thing. You're trampling on Constitutional rights again. How about probable cause? Too difficult a concept?
We understand that some checkpoint security measures annoy many Americans, but because of the intelligence information gathered from around the world, TSA deems these measures are necessary. We appreciate any opportunity to highlight our officers, enhance public understanding about why we do what we do, and show what motivates us every day in order to keep air travel safe.
Must be doing a good job against mule/donkey borne IEDs. Haven't heard of one of those going off here in the US. Ever heard of the kid standing on a street corner and waving his arms? When asked why he was waving his arms the kid responded with "I'm keeping tigers away." The questioner said "kid, there aren't any tigers around here." Kid said "doing a good job aren't I?" Security theater coming to a neighborhood near you.
December 22, 2008 5:47 PM
We appreciate any opportunity to highlight our officers, enhance public understanding about why we do what we do, and show what motivates us every day in order to keep air travel safe.
There are many unanswered (with REAL answers) questions right here on this blog. Care to answer these questions when asked repeatedly by several posters.
We keep asking, and either we never get an answer, or it's a non-answer with diversions from what was really asked.
BTW, isn't calling the TSA Operations Center the "Freedom Center" a bit overboard? I would think almost 100% of all flights are quite safe with or without your center. What do you do from there? Launch missiles? Kip said that they were tracking flights that had "suspects" onboard as he spoke. Exactly how does watching a flight path of those planes make it any safer?
December 22, 2008 7:37 PM
Kip Hawley walks around with a badge on?
...
Really?
December 22, 2008 8:04 PM
I would hope that both the "parent" and the TSO(s) who allowed a sleeping infant into a high-powered x-ray machine at a TSA chokepoint were both brought to the attention of law enforcement for endangering the infant...
If not, why not?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
December 22, 2008 10:42 PM
At least you guys are giving some notice to Schiener. That should make some of the crowd happy.
December 23, 2008 1:00 AM
Interesting post. My respect for "60 Minutes" as a news show (if it ever was such) is now diminished greatly. The incident with a baby going through the X-ray machine was widely reported. Any decent reporter would have known about that during research for this piece. And while I know there are some who are concerned about how much of a person would be visible with the whole body imager, based on what I have heard and read, that was not a real issue, assuming TSA uses the device as they claim they will.
As for the "Freedom Center", giving something a nice, friendly sounding name does not change what it is. While you may hope such a place exists, I most certainly do not. Every step we take towards your so-called security I see as another loss of freedom. How long before we are totally safe from any threat and at what cost to our liberties? It is a slippery slope that we have started down and I certainly hope someone is able to arrest our momentum before we find ourselves living with Mr. Orwell.
Though a MP in Britain was heard to quote (and I am paraphrasing here) that any security measures, no matter how invasive, are worthwhile since being alive is the greatest civil liberty there is, I would have to differ. My civil liberties are worth a great deal to me. If that means our society is a bit less secure then that is a risk I am willing to live (and die) with.
December 23, 2008 7:37 AM
While we're waiting for an answer to my first question re: the layer failure that apparently allowed 2 fliers of 'interest' to get into the air during the taping of this segment, could you please explain how Kip could claim to not know about the Red Team Test Failure rate when Ms. Stahl asked him about it? And now that he's had time, hopefully, to review this data, what is his response to her original question? And, finally, since Kip brought it up, could you please describe 1 action implemented by the TSA that, had it been in place on 9/10/01, would have prevented the hijacking's of 9/11? (Banning box cutters doesn't count since there are so many perfectly legal alternatives allowed). Nor, btw, does hardening the cockpit doors since the airlines did that themselves (as was pointed out during the segment).
December 23, 2008 10:24 AM
Kudos to all TSO's. I'm quite impressed with the amount of BS that they have to do with and how professional and calm they remain. I travel for business 50-75% of the year. I carry a CPap and a laptop. I don't check luggage. I never get annoyed at TSO's asking to test my Cpap, open my luggage, or otherwise do their jobs. Last night, however, in the RSW airport (Ft. Myers), I lost my cool. My understanding was that the TSO's are mainly responsible for our safety as passangers. You see, as I have learned, to get through the checkpoint quicker, I have my Cpap (in a case) clipped to the outside of my luggage and my computer, outside of my briefcase in it's own case, slung over my shoulder. As I was about to enter the "maze", a TSO at the entrance stopped me and stated, per airline regulation, she could not let me through becuase I had 4 bags. Clearly frustrated, I asked her to clarify since this has NEVER happened to me before at any airport. She stated that my briefcase, the cpap, laptop, and my rollerboard all constituted "carry on" luggage since they were in their own seperate cases. In order for me to proceed, I had to repack them into my bags, walk the 30 feet and then remove them again from the bags to be scanned in the x-ray machine. My frustration is two fold. Number one: since when are TSO's charged with enforcing airline baggage limit policy? Isn't that what the airline employees are for? I figure TSO's have enough to do searching for threats. Number 2: aren't TSO's entrusted with some sort of ability to make a judgement call? I would sincerely hope that someone who is charged with my protection, can use enough judgement to see that these are "cases" that came out of the larger bags I was carrying. Considering I removed them from the luggage within view of the TSO, I was extremely shocked at the officer's lack of discernment. I'm apologizing here for losing my cool, my reponse to this TSO was less then professional. I commend her on her calm and professional demeanor. More importantly, however, these 2 issues do concern me.
December 23, 2008 10:33 AM
"Freedom Center" and "Department of Homeland Security", both terms frightening and nauseating.
December 23, 2008 11:02 AM
Can you explain the images of the woman in the MMW (strip-search) machine? How can it be that it cannot see through a bra? So what good is the machine if all she has to do is hide something in her bra?
Something is just not right here. Other articles claim, and show that the strip-search machine is just that.
So in your desire to enhance public understanding, please tell us the truth.
We have seen the REAL images from the MMW machine, and know that it shows everything under one's clothing.
How can you justify putting children in that machine? I think it is a felony to view children under those circumstances.
I will await your full response.
December 23, 2008 11:22 AM
Dave Chang posted in part the following.........
Number 2: aren't TSO's entrusted with some sort of ability to make a judgement call? I would sincerely hope that someone who is charged with my protection, can use enough judgement to see that these are "cases" that came out of the larger bags I was carrying. Considering I removed them from the luggage within view of the TSO, I was extremely shocked at the officer's lack of discernment.
...............................
Dave you jut witnessed TSO's judgement at work. The are highly trained (just ask them) and know all the rules about everything.
You should be comforted that your safety is in their hands!
December 23, 2008 12:10 PM
Many average travelers attempt to defeat some TSA rules when flying. The ridiculus liquid rule comes to mind.
How much better off would we be if TSA had sensible rules that were supported by the general public?
As it stands now you have the general public thumbing its noses at you as well as potential bad actors trying to test your defenses.
Seems like a complete failure of TSA management to me.
December 23, 2008 12:46 PM
I for one have to say that the 60 minute piece was poorly executed. Stahl clearly didn’t do her homework in preparation for the piece. She continuously made errors (whether meaning to be condescending toward the TSO workforce or not, I don’t feel it fair for me to judge) in calling TSO's 'screeners' (that job title was the old name that was done away with in 2004) and referring to the ENGAGE! Class as 'screener school' and as 'anger management' neither of which are accurate.
Bruce Schnier also seemed to lack credibility, his closing argument was to increase resources in the intelligence community, which I feel everyone would agree on is a wise course of action, however he did not give one single suggestion for improvement other then doing away with certain procedures. These same procedures will be done away with as soon as technology can evolve to meet the threat, something he does not acknowledge. Certainly a man of his claimed credentials should understand.
In response to those above 1) The MMW portal is voluntary, always has always will (same as the walkthrough metal detector) TSA will always maintain a process where people can be inspected without the use of technology, it is called a pat down. Putting children in it is definitely not a crime, the images do not come even close to any description of 'pornography' and the consent is implied (by the legal guardian). Check your local penal code if you want to make claims such as that, you will be unsupported.
The analogy of the child waiving his/her hands to ward off tigers is a poor analogy. Have attempts been made on civil aviation since 09/11/2001, yes, do all make the news, no, but to lax security because you do not perceive a threat is a fault on the public's part. The threat is real and until procedure and technology is up to meeting the evolving threat the TSA must do everything it can to keep civil aviation safe.
You all must also remember the TSA was only founded 6 years ago; its development like many governmental entities in the past is still in its infancy. Give the TSA time to develop and things will get better. For those of you who traveled back in '02 and '03 can definitely notice an improvement in the system today.
Respectfully,
A. Lipson
December 23, 2008 3:00 PM
"They will do it as many times as they can".... yes they will, except for the fact that they are dead. All 19 of them... every single one of them.
There just isn't a real threat. This is a waste of my tax dollars fighting fake threats.
__________________________________
Who is all dead? All of the terrorits, every single one of them? You think that there are 19 total terrorists in the world.
Steven, shameful.
Really smart people post here!
December 23, 2008 3:42 PM
So how many false positives do you have? Angry or upset passengers are a pretty common occurrence and just because a passenger looks suspicious doesn't mean a thing. You're trampling on Constitutional rights again. How about probable cause? Too difficult a concept?
___________________________________
Oh my constitutional rights, blah blah blah! What constitutional rights are being trampled. Because I see none, and if people did their homework they would not make these dumb assumptions! Probable cause, what is that? To difficult a concept? Obviously for you. What does TSA need probable cause for?! When a person submits their belongings and themselves for screening they are giving TSA permission to search them as well as their things. Did you know, that with permission there is no probable cause needed.
December 23, 2008 3:49 PM
I would hope that both the "parent" and the TSO(s) who allowed a sleeping infant into a high-powered x-ray machine at a TSA chokepoint were both brought to the attention of law enforcement for endangering the infant...
If not, why not?
Tom (1 of 5-6)
___________________________________
Once again a very smart question from the peanut gallery.
Are you kidding me?! Yeah the parent must not be the smartest person in the world.
If any TSO saw this incident about to occur, it would not have happened. TSA does not allow living animals or children in our xray machines.
Funny you people on this blog just blame blame blame!
That was no fault of the TSO!
So why doesn't the person behind them in line face legal action for not saying anything and the person behind them and the person behind them. Sound dumb?! Of course. think before you talk(write).
December 23, 2008 3:55 PM
It was interesting and instructive to see Kip himself in the (virtual) flesh. He showed us that he is indeed an impeccably loyal Bush appointee who dutifully parrots the Official Party Line at every opportunity. As expected, he deftly brushed aside all the criticism by repeating yet again that all the hassles and visible stupidity are completely justified and 100% necessary because We're At War. Then he invoked 9/11 and reminded us to Be Afraid. So we're not supposed to ask the obvious question about how the two people he was so carefully tracking at the TSA's Freedom Center got through all those hermetic layers of TSA security and onto those planes. I'm sure if Leslie had actually asked that question, Kips answer would be Remember 9/11 and We're At War!.
We're also supposed to have great sympathy for all those poor unfortunate TSOs who need anger management classes to cope with all the unjust abuse they suffer from all those ignorant ungrateful passengers who just don't appreciate all the wonderful, highly effective work the TSA does to protect the Homeland. If we'd only think about 9/11 more often and be very afraid, we would then give the TSA the respect it so clearly deserves and all the problems would be solved.
I can't be sure how effective the 60 Minutes segment was for improving the TSA's image. Those who already believe the TSA is effective at protecting aviation will probably feel even more reassured. And those who think the TSA is a waste of money and an unwarranted intrusion will shake their heads at Bruce Schneier's remarks and feel even more convinced by Kip's shilling. So the net effect is probably zero.
December 23, 2008 8:46 PM
These officers are trained to look for involuntary behaviors people trying to evade security display and can distinguish them from the behaviors of the average frazzled passenger late for a flight.
When Leslie Stahl expressed her disbelief that BDOs can actually do that, the answer was simply that they could. She should have pressed that further, but for some reason she did not. Presumably we're supposed to accept that assertion on faith just because Kip said so. I still have trouble believing it, but as the actual success vs. false positive rate is almost certainly SSI there's no way to objectively evaluate the claim. So I have to remain skeptical.
Bruce Schneier did note that there may be a security benefit to al-Qaeda believing that the TSA might actually possess some kind of "magic" that can reliably distinguish between the "micro-facial expressions" of an anxious passenger and those of a terrorist. But I really have trouble believing that we can either rely on the (possible) gullibility of (some) terrorists, or that such a belief is worth what surely must be a high cumulative cost in all the false-positive passengers who are needlessly hassled (and probably subjected to farm more stress than what triggered the BDO "magic").
Overall, the TSA is asking us to accept quite a lot on blind faith. Under some circumstances that might be possible. But when that demand for blind faith comes from an administration that has such a consistent history of untrustworthiness, it's nearly impossible to have any kind of faith in anything the TSA says or does.
December 23, 2008 8:59 PM
"Freedom Center"?!? Oh, gag me with a spoon.
Just how much TSA koolaid do you headquarters types drink, anyway?
December 23, 2008 10:34 PM
re: A Lipson's post.
Drinking plenty of that Koolaide, eh!
December 24, 2008 10:42 AM
Quote: " Anonymous said...
Can you explain the images of the woman in the MMW (strip-search) machine? How can it be that it cannot see through a bra? So what good is the machine if all she has to do is hide something in her bra?
Something is just not right here. Other articles claim, and show that the strip-search machine is just that.
So in your desire to enhance public understanding, please tell us the truth.
We have seen the REAL images from the MMW machine, and know that it shows everything under one's clothing.
How can you justify putting children in that machine? I think it is a felony to view children under those circumstances.
I will await your full response.
December 23, 2008 11:22 AM"
Keep waiting.
December 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Another brave but anonymous alleged screener wrote, in response to the issue of the baby being sent through the x-ray in its car seat:
"If any TSO saw this incident about to occur, it would not have happened."
Do you realize that you have just conceded that the screeners at this particular check point were NOT watching what was about to happen? IOW, they were not doing their job.
December 24, 2008 10:56 AM
A. Lipson wrote:
You all must also remember the TSA was only founded 6 years ago; its development like many governmental entities in the past is still in its infancy. Give the TSA time to develop and things will get better.
No excuse.
It does not take 6 years to know how to treat fellow humans. If for some reason the TSA needs more than 6 years to begin to get things right, can you give us an idea at what point they will acquire such skills? 10 years, 20 years, never?
I like how excuses come easy for government agencies. Why can't you just tell the truth instead of making excuses?
Can we make the same claims? "Hey it's been only 6 years of this TSA stuff, so I need more time to figure out how to go through the checkpoint."
How good would that go over?
December 24, 2008 12:19 PM
Do you realize that you have just conceded that the screeners at this particular check point were NOT watching what was about to happen? IOW, they were not doing their job.
They may well have been doing their job, at least as their bosses had specifically defined that job. It's entirely conceivable that the TSOs at that checkpoint were so preoccupied with liquids, shoes, and whichever of yesterday's threats were on that day's checklist that they failed to notice the baby until it appeared on the x-ray screen.
That's an inherent problem with the TSA's reactive approach to security at airports. When TSOs are myopically focused on interdicting a continually-growing list of specific items in belated reaction to past threats, they're going to miss today's threats (and today's stupidity). They'd be doing their job, but that that job would always be a useless waste of money, time, and liberty. Presumably that's why we have BDOs, whose full week of training enables them to distinguish terrorists from ordinary anxious frustrated passengers (at least some necessarily-classified percent of the time), leaving the TSOs free to make sure no lip gloss gets on an airplane unless it's in a Freedom Baggie.
To be sure, CBS News failed to do its job as well. There are many questions Leslie Stahl should have asked, especially when Kip answered her properly skeptical question about the BDOs' ability to distinguish between terrorism and normal anxiety by saying "they can." Aside from showing Bruce Schneier's token opposition, they accepted TSA claims on faith just as we're all supposed to do. Perhaps Viacom's executives don't want to risk antagonizing the Bush administration even in its final days.
December 24, 2008 2:30 PM
Babysitting passengers is not what TSOs are supposed to be doing, although it quite often times comes down to that (because giant flashing signs with rules clearly stated obviously aren't working). It reminds me of the people who put their dogs into microwaves and were surprised that they died and then wanted to sue the microwave companies.
A little common sense goes a long way. Heck, just putting my child on a moving conveyor belt into ANY machine is not going to happen so long as I'm still breathing.
As far as the 60 minutes show, it didn't really solve anything for either side. The TSA side pretty much offered nothing new. And the anti-TSA side just came with the same complaints with no solutions as to how they can be made better (Bruce Schneier). It's very easy to complain in life, but much more difficult to solve difficult issues.
I personally feel all baggage should be screened specifically for explosives, whether that means manually or through more advanced x-ray technology similar to what is used in TSA's checked baggage. Kip stated that TSOs have no problems identifying guns and knives, so to me the next logical step is to focus our efforts on technology that detects explosives.
Once you secure a plane from all knives, guns, and IEDs, I think you can ease off of some of the more "silly" restrictions, such as lacross sticks, liquids (since they're been tested for explosives), etc. With secured cockpit doors, the main threat to a plane is explosives. You're not getting into the cockpit or taking down a plane without it, so let's focus our attention there.
December 24, 2008 3:47 PM
Quote:
" Sandra said...
Another brave but anonymous alleged screener wrote, in response to the issue of the baby being sent through the x-ray in its car seat:
"If any TSO saw this incident about to occur, it would not have happened."
Do you realize that you have just conceded that the screeners at this particular check point were NOT watching what was about to happen? IOW, they were not doing their job.
December 24, 2008 10:56 AM"
Man do you people twist things! The TSOs did not see the woman put the baby into the x-ray because IT'S NOT THIER JOB!! TSOs working the x-ray position pay attention to what is on the screen. The PASSENGERS load the x-ray belt with their own items, TSOs don't. For an x-ray operator to be watching what is being put into the tunnel would mean they weren't watching the screen as the bags in front of that one were passing through.
Once the items come out of x-ray they are dealt with by the rest of the checkpoint TSOs (bag search, ETD, etc.).
A while ago, TSA did away with the so called "loader" position where TSOs would help the passengers load their belongings into x-ray. We complained that this was not a good thing as now people jam all kinds of stuff into the x-ray all at the same time, including, in this case, a baby.
December 24, 2008 5:34 PM
Sandra wrote:
Do you realize that you have just conceded that the screeners at this particular check point were NOT watching what was about to happen? IOW, they were not doing their job.
In this case, I think it was the literal truth. I heard about this a couple days after it happened, though it was... golly, a long time ago, now. A couple of years, at least, but my memory can't lock down a specific time.
Without a 'loader' position, up in the front beyond the x-ray operator (as was the case during this specific event) it can get mightily tricky to see everything the passengers put into the x-ray. The closest person, at that point, is the WTMD operator, and they're several feet away with the WTMD itself and the x-ray feed-in cage in the way. Plus they have to talk and interact with the passengers as they're coming through the WTMD, eye their boarding pass, sometimes conduct pat-downs.
From what I understand about the situation, as soon as the x-ray operator saw the start of the infant on the x-ray screen, they slammed down the emergency shut-off button.
Personally, I think TSA made a bad decision when they removed the 'loader' from one of the official positions. There's never been any question here among my STSOs or fellow TSOs on whether or not it vastly improves the overall efficiency of the screening process.
December 25, 2008 8:57 AM
Merry Christmas All
December 25, 2008 8:59 AM
To the poster about the enforcement of the number of carry-on:
It is the airlines authority to enforce this rule as it is an FAA regulation NOT a TSA regulation. That officer was incorrect in what she did and should be corrected. Also sounds like she was on a "power trip" to make you go back and repack your bags into your larger carry-on. The only thing that I know we as TSA can do in enforcement of the carry-on is to document the particular scenario and send it to our regulatory which will be able to fine the airlines for not enforcing a federal regulation. Nothing we can really do to passengers. I even think your CPAP machine would count as some kind of exemption to this rule. We as TSA do not know about carry-on enforcement. I suggest you write up your post into the Got Feedback? section so this situation can be investigated further. Sorry for your "bad apple" encounter.
December 25, 2008 12:58 PM
I will say one thing that I whole heartedly agree with Bruce Schneier on. It completely makes no sense that you give items back to passengers and they can keep trying to go through security to smuggle the item through. Eventually your officers will miss the item because the screening is not 100%. What a loop hole!? The passesnger can just keep going through different lanes and such and it will be easy to forget a face when that many people are interacting with your TSA officers.
December 26, 2008 12:20 PM
"Do you realize that you have just conceded that the screeners at this particular check point were NOT watching what was about to happen? IOW, they were not doing their job."
That is why there are multiple layers of security- the one TSO who has to help all of the passengers at the belt may have missed seeing it, but the XRay operator sure didn't. This is in now way the fault of the TSO. The baby was certainly seen right away, ON the xray screen, but it was the irresonsible parent who put that child through there!
December 26, 2008 2:48 PM
This post is yet another in a disturbing trend: form over substance.
The minute there is a national media story about you, the public relations wheel get to spinning, and a huge puff piece blog posting appears to highlight your collective wonderfulness, and to downplay any criticisms. Yes, when you are given specific criticism in this blog, they are generally ignored or dismissed. Usually ignored.
you have done a wonderful job of destroying any credibility you once had with the majority of the line community (not including the TS-whatevers who attack your critics while posting anonymously. Have to wonder if Kip spends all day on line posting to this forum.
Any, while on teh subject of credibility and spin control, do you really want us to believe that only 800 or so posts have been killed since you started the blog. I bet some of the regulars here have had 800 posts individually killed.
Sure glad we Arizonans are sending you our soooooon-to-be-ex-Governor. You guys deserve each other.
December 27, 2008 1:32 AM
I hope she does a good job as secretary.
December 27, 2008 11:50 AM
Donnie writes:
It's very easy to complain in life, but much more difficult to solve difficult issues.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it ... at least as far as this blog is concerned.
This blog is full of posts containing suggestions on ways to improve the screening experience --- some serious, some not. The silly ideas are (justifiably) ridiculed by the TSA. The serious ideas are (at best) dismissed out of hand. (At worst, they're ignored entirely.)
I'd love to be contradicted; can anyone point to a suggestion made on this blog that lead to an improvement in the security process?
If TSA wants the help of the public in making things better, then it actually needs to participate in the process. You can't claim that TSA's critics are only complaining when they are, in fact, offering suggestions.
December 28, 2008 9:32 PM
Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1
3-1-1 for carry-ons = 3 ounce bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3 oz. container size is a security measure
......................
I see that TSA is still providing false information to the travelers of this nation.
It's sad that a slogan is more important than the truth at TSA.
Of course TSA has a long history of being less than truthful.
Par for the course.
December 28, 2008 10:24 PM
Perhaps most importantly, how come TSA/GAO studies on the effectiveness of airport security that involve government employees secretly attempting to pass security with bombs, guns, knives, and whatnot, are kept confidential? It seems that the only reason you are keeping these "real world tests" of TSA infrastructure (that is, the ones where the people weren't tipped off about the "secret" test beforehand) classified is because they are embarrassing.
For example: "[T]wo GAO investigators demonstrated that it is possible to bring the components for several IEDs and one IID through TSA checkpoints and onto airline flights without being challenged by transportation security officers. (...) TSA determined that specific details regarding these weaknesses are sensitive security information and are therefore not discussed in this testimony." (GAO Report, 15 Nov 2007). How convenient for you guys! Admitting incompetence is "sensitive." I'll bet!
First of all, the idea of "Behavior Detection Officers" is so ridiculous I'm hoping it was a joke. (Like that one time TSA people yelled "Surprise!" after faking an arrest, scaring a woman so much she went into an asthma attack. Real funny stuff, guys.)
The human mind is so complex we can't even fathom its depths. Many have tried, but there's a reason lie detectors are inadmissible in court: they don't work. Now we're supposed to believe a teenager earning $9 an hour can do the job that the world's top psychologists cannot? They can't do anything more than harass people who fit certain stereotypes, and, lo and behold, 99% of serious terrorists aren't going to walk around rubbing their hands in anticipation. You're living in a comic book if you believe that.
Also, how does TSA protect airplanes from people shooting at the planes with semi-automatic weapons, homemade rocket launchers, or any of the sundry weaponry available to enormous amounts of people? Jet airplanes are very sensitive to debris. A bird being "ingested" by a jet engine can cause catastrophic engine failure... what do you think bullets would do? GOD FORBID something horrible like that happening, but it certainly could happen, and I think you need to look into securing every square inch of this country that has any contact with flight paths.
How come the "housekeeping" staff who clean out the planes are not searched? Yes, the pilots with their shiny epaulets are paraded through, but that is just a theatrical move by the TSA to say "Hey, look, Americans! We're so tough on security that we can't even trust the guy who will shortly be controlling a few hundred thousand pounds of steel and gasoline to not have more than 3 ounces of Gatorade."
Don't think I'm exaggerating the risk of disgruntled airline employees. If you do, look up what happened to PSA Flight 1771 in 1987.
TSA people may have good intentions. But good intentions alone are proof of nothing.
Speaking of proof, how can the TSA with a straight face say "everything is working great -- haven't you seen, there haven't been any attacks?!" That's a logical fallacy. You can't say "Terrorists haven't attacked an airplane lately, therefore the terrorists must have been stopped by TSA's procedures." You'd be laughed right out of any middle-school rhetoric class in the country.
By and large the public ignorantly has an association between "greater inconvenience" with "greater quality." (Basically, "no pain, no gain.") For example, it's an inconvenience for a student to spend over a decade learning to be a doctor, therefore anyone who walks out with a diploma must be an expert, right? Wrong.
The TSA's ever-tightening ridiculous rules, which are apparently based on "secret intelligence" — another "gotcha," because independent sources cannot confirm nor deny the existence of such intelligence or its contents, or its specifics, so you guys kind of "win by default" — trick people into feeling safer. I don't want a pacifier in my mouth.
I love how your "implied consent" thing works: unless we object (resulting in us walking, not flying to our destination) to waiving our Constitutional rights, it is assumed that we agree to be treated like a prisoner, and our belongings to be rifled through, and even stolen from. This "legal technicality" is built like a house of cards. By the same token, do you think if I took a rock and wrote on it "By your accepting this rock through your window, you hereby agree to give me $1 million dollars. This is a legally binding document." -- Do you think that would work?
Are Congressmen and other politicians subjected to the same procedures that Joe Blow would be? I doubt the President gets wanded before getting on Air Force One. Perhaps if these politicians actually stood in a three-hour security line, they might realize that the system isn't working.
Schneier sums it up perfectly: "The point of terrorism is to cause terror. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act. And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want."
December 29, 2008 2:55 AM
Guys, it's not wise to take credit for attacks "not happening" unless you want to take the blame for when they do happen. That's just foolish.
December 29, 2008 2:57 AM
Jim Huggins said: "can anyone point to a suggestion made on this blog that lead to an improvement in the security process?"
I cannot think of a single change in policy as a result of this blog. Our work trying to help has been completely ignored. This blog is useless, and that (and the lack of regular updates) is why most of us have given up.
December 29, 2008 9:36 AM
A. Lipson wrote:
You all must also remember the TSA was only founded 6 years ago; its development like many governmental entities in the past is still in its infancy. Give the TSA time to develop and things will get better.
No excuse.
It does not take 6 years to know how to treat fellow humans. If for some reason the TSA needs more than 6 years to begin to get things right, can you give us an idea at what point they will acquire such skills? 10 years, 20 years, never?
I like how excuses come easy for government agencies. Why can't you just tell the truth instead of making excuses?
Can we make the same claims? "Hey it's been only 6 years of this TSA stuff, so I need more time to figure out how to go through the checkpoint."
How good would that go over?
-------------
You would be supprised how many people do not know what to do at the airport, and also how many people do not pay attention to the actions of the other passengers ahead of them (learn from their success navigating the system).
You've seemingly misunderstood my statement. I said nothing about "treating passengers like humans" I was merely discussing procedure and operational development in response to a threat, absolutely nothing about customer service was ever my intent to discuss.
When ever I go through TSA's checkpoints I have never been treated like anything other then a passenger going to my destination, nothing negative, typically courteous and expeditious, this might not be indicative of your larger airports like LGA or LAX, which I have heard have their own issues (Presumably from their local populations attitudes).
You cant please everyone (simple understanding of people), and from reading the responses on this board, many here are very close minded and no matter what will always look disfavorably at TSA. Ive attempted to look at TSA from an unbiased perspective and see much improvement (since inception) and also much more room to improve.
Respectfully,
A. Lipson
December 29, 2008 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...
"This is in now way the fault of the TSO. The baby was certainly seen right away, ON the xray screen, but it was the irresonsible parent who put that child through there!"
If this is the case I'm thinking of, it wasn't so much an irresponsible parent as an incredibly intimidated non-english-speaking grandparent. She didn't know what the machine was, just knew that eveyone kept shouting at her to put everything through the machine, so she did!
Stupid thing to do, yes, but she was confused and bewildered and intimated.
December 29, 2008 9:45 AM
I believe most of the suggestions on this blog is to change procedures like the footwear stuff. Sorry but that is not an improvement. Suggestions such as that are detrimental to security. We want to go forward not backward.
December 29, 2008 10:00 AM
Anon: "I believe most of the suggestions on this blog is to change procedures like the footwear stuff. Sorry but that is not an improvement. Suggestions such as that are detrimental to security. We want to go forward not backward."
There are very good suggestions here regarding footwear, which are improvements. Saying they are not does not make them so.
More than that: how about TK's strapping machine? Is that not a significant improvement?
How about the traceable TSA search cards in luggage?
How about the procedures for full body scans? We all agree the sceeners should not be hidden from the person being scanned, but this blog has totally ignored this point.
How about the idea that the type of liquid should be determined, not the volume?
How about our indications that the current ID policy is pointless?
How about our indication that SSSS marks on a boarding pass (followed by letting the alleged threatening person free to roam through the airport) are silly and useless?
How about our suggestions to use more technology to detect traces of explosives?
Are our suggestions really detrimental to security? Is it really possible that ALL our suggestions should be ignored?
December 29, 2008 4:17 PM
A. Lipson wrote:
You would be surprised how many people do not know what to do at the airport
Yes, and the reasons are:
1. People really don't care.
2. There is nowhere to get ALL the rules that are enforced at the checkpoints. When they can change on a whim, then how is one to know what do do?
I was merely discussing procedure and operational development in response to a threat, absolutely nothing about customer service was ever my intent to discuss.
Ahh, but customer service is very much a part of the TSA checkpoint experience. Procedures involve humans. Do you think yelling at people somehow will make them obey all the more?
Do you think people like to be treated worse than criminals?
I can come up with so many ways to improve the checkpoint, and still have the required security in place.
The TSA has NO incentive to improve or care how they treat the public. They have a customer that has NO other choice but to go through their silly security theater. Why would the TSA care?
I do not buy your theory that it must take more than 6 years to put in place an effective and customer friendly checkpoint. When it comes to almost any government agency, customer service is the last consideration.
December 29, 2008 4:35 PM
Interestingly enough, in spite of the stupid shoe carnival, the TSA recently allowed gunpowder through with a forged boarding pass as described in this story.
December 29, 2008 4:46 PM
Come on, we all know the drill here already. Those of us who don't should be ashamed. The TSA blog puts up some puff piece telling us what they are doing to fix something that isn't broken, and that we should ignore the fact that they aren't doing their primary mission. We complain by telling them what is really important is doing there primary mission, and they ignore what we say so they can put up another puff piece. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. The cycle continues.
December 29, 2008 6:13 PM
Having TSA provide security is much the same as paying the fellow who shows up monthly at shops and stores to collect their security fee.
Don't pay and see what happens.
December 29, 2008 8:38 PM
"I believe most of the suggestions on this blog is to change procedures like the footwear stuff. Sorry but that is not an improvement."
Of course it is. No footwear poses any threat to an aircraft; therefore TSA should end the mandatory show-removal carnival that does nothing to enhance safety. This would speed screenings and do nothing to compromise safety.
"Suggestions such as that are detrimental to security. We want to go forward not backward."
Since footwear is not a threat to air safety, this suggestion is not at all detrimental to security.
December 30, 2008 12:14 AM
Can I be a BDO? I mean, what other job can you can just stand around the airport looking at attractive members of the opposite sex all day and get paid for it?
Go to class for a few days and suddenly you're an expert at reading people's facial expressions? Come on!
December 30, 2008 2:20 AM
>>The only thing that I know we as TSA can do in >>enforcement of the carry-on is to document the >>particular scenario and send it to our regulatory >>which will be able to fine the airlines for not >>enforcing a federal regulation.
Is your agency about security or is it about revenue collection? You tell me that you're going to fine the airlines for excessive baggage before the airline has even had a chance to count the number of bags a passenger has brought?
So if I print my boarding pass at home, show up at the curb, and go right to security with four bags, that's the airline's fault?
December 30, 2008 2:52 AM
so, what exactly happens to a baby who goes through an X-ray machine?
December 30, 2008 2:52 AM
Ayn R. Key said...
Interestingly enough, in spite of the stupid shoe carnival, the TSA recently allowed gunpowder through with a forged boarding pass as described in this story.
Don't worry they caught at least one tube of cinnamon rolls.
December 30, 2008 12:03 PM
The new ID laws have been in effect for a full 24 hours.
Question: Is the TSA STILL illegally demanding an ID as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area when the law clearly does not give the TSA the statutory right to do so?
My updated blog.
December 30, 2008 12:32 PM
Trollkiller said...
The new ID laws have been in effect for a full 24 hours.
Question: Is the TSA STILL illegally demanding an ID as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area when the law clearly does not give the TSA the statutory right to do so?
My updated blog.
December 30, 2008 12:32 PM
TK, wish you would add the TSA CASH INQUISITION to your blog/queries.
I ask daily for the enabling legislation that authorizes TSA to submit a person to interrogation just becasue they happen to be have a large amount of cash and bought a ticket to fly on an aircraft owned by a commercial airline.
You've seen the nonsense answers entry level screeners have come back with, yet nothing said justifies this outrage.
Blogger Bob continues to ignore the question although it is "ON TOPIC" for this blog.
He culls out my questions as fast as I submit them because he knows TSA cannot reconcile this practice.
And as we all know, TSA certainly doesn't want the public to know what bad deeds TSA is up to today!
December 30, 2008 1:45 PM
For the Anon who keeps asking about cash, please read.
Also, just to show you that traveling domestically with large amounts of currency is OK, please note the "Traveling With Special Items" section at the bottom. We actually advise you to let a TSO know, so we can screen you in private if desired. (So nobody else sees your cash or valuable items)
Currency Reporting
It is legal to transport any amount of currency or other monetary instruments into or out of the United States. However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign place, or into the United States from any foreign place, you must file a report with U.S. Customs. This report is called the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments, Customs Form 4790. Furthermore, if you receive in the United States, currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time which has been transported, mailed, or shipped to you from any foreign place, you must file a CF-4790. These forms can be obtained at all U.S. ports of entry and departure.
Monetary instruments include:
U.S. or foreign coins and currency;
Traveler checks in any form;
Negotiable instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee, or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
Incomplete instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) signed, but with they payee’s name omitted; and
Ssecurities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery. However, the term "monetary instruments" does not include:
Checks or money orders made payable to the order of a named person which have not been endorsed or which bear restrictive endorsements;
Warehouse receipts; or
Bills of lading.
Reporting is required under the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act (PL 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), as amended. Failure to comply can result in civil and criminal penalties and may lead to forfeiture of your monetary instrument(s).
U.S. Customs Service
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Telephone (202) 927-1520
Traveling with Special Items
Currency, Coins, Precious Metals, or Valuable Jewelry
If you are carrying valuable items such as large amounts of currency, coins or jewelry, we recommend that you ask Security Officers to screen you and your carry-on luggage in private. This will maintain your security and avoid public scrutiny.
We suggest that you ask to speak with a TSA screening supervisor before you are screened. Tell the supervisor discretely that you would be screened in a private location.
TSA operating procedures require a witness to be present during private screening. The witness may be another TSA Security Officer or someone that is traveling with you.
If cleared, you and your valuables will be allowed to enter the sterile side of the airport.
Private screening is also available to individuals randomly selected for screening at the airline gate.
We recommend that you carry these items with you at all times.
Currency Reporting: For international flights, you must report the transport of $10,000.00 USD or more to the U.S. Customs Service.
December 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Bob said...
For the Anon who keeps asking about cash, please read.
Also, just to show you that traveling domestically with large amounts of currency is OK, please note the "Traveling With Special Items" section at the bottom. We actually advise you to let a TSO know, so we can screen you in private if desired. (So nobody else sees your cash or valuable items)///////////////////////////////////////////
Bob you have again evaded the question.
Why does TSA concern itself with a traveler who has a large amount of curreny?
Why would this same traveler be subjected to an inquiry by TSA or a LEO.
Please provide the legislation or other document that addresses this invasiion of privacy and directs a TSO to comply with this procedure.
Please provide the name of the TSA official who signed said document.
If the carrying of cash is legal then why would TSA concern itself with this matter.
Bob, what you provided did not in any way address the questions that have been asked.
December 30, 2008 2:59 PM
Blogger Bob, you have quoted back to us the proper way large amounts of cash should be handled by government employees at the TSA screening areas, but you have failed to address the statements by other TSA employees that still insist that if they encounter ANYONE with a large amount of cash they would report them to a LEO even though the have zero indication any laws have been broken.
They insist that even thought they do not specifically search for large amounts of cash, if they find it it is automatically a "big deal" that must involve a LEO.
If you want to actually fix a problem, Bob, please have this perverse mis-application of "authority" by TSA employees corrected and eliminated.
Retrain those who believe it is ANY business of a TSA employee to refer or even notice a large amount of cash accompanying a traveler on a domestic flight.
Thanks!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
December 30, 2008 3:19 PM
Bob, for someone who works in the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs you certainly have serious problems with basic communications.
I have to question your ability to understand even simple written questions if you feel that you have answered any of the questions I have asked.
I certainly know about Currency Reporting. It seems that TSA does not. It is TSA who has injected itself in the business of ordinary people for no understandable reason.
I would suggest that you retract your last post and try again.
December 30, 2008 3:21 PM
Bob, it seems some people will just never be happy no matter what you do. The cash question has been answered again and again. They just don't like the answer. What's that old adage about insanity...?
December 30, 2008 4:22 PM
Thomas said:
If you want to actually fix a problem, Bob, please have this perverse mis-application of "authority" by TSA employees corrected and eliminated.
TSA fix anything? It seems that they make one blunder after another, and like a bull in a china shop, really do not care what havoc they create.
I believe that is their strategy.
Create so much confusion and distraction, so no one really can fully comprehend how incompetent they really are.
TSA confiscating cinnamon rolls because dough is now a gel. So what is cheese? Would a loaf of bread be prohibited now?
You guys clearly have no grasp of true security, and are alienating the public, that one day you may need to turn to for help. When that day comes, you will see just how much we hold you in disgust.
Is it that difficult to answer and account for very simple things that millions of others seem to have no problems with? The TSA is certainly a breed of their own. And that is not meant as a compliment.
December 30, 2008 4:55 PM
Bob, continuing with the “Carrying Large Sums of Cash” discussion, one way discussion most of the time, I think only a very few reasons exist that you have not posted the enabling documents for this procedure.
First, to be clear, more than one comment has been made that TSA in fact does refer a person to additional screening and questioning if they are found to have a large sum of cash with them. There is no doubt about TSA policy in place on this point.
The real question is why, what does the document actually require, and who authorized the policy?
That is if a written policy actually exists at all!
I am starting to doubt such a document has ever been written.
That would mean that someone within TSA verbally communicated the need for this procedure. It would also indicate that this person knew the requirement was in fact illegal and did not want his/her name associated with an documented illegal order.
I further believe that whoever authorized this policy lacks personal integrity and is afraid to step forward and take responsibility for their actions.
All of the above reasons demonstrate why TSA and its employees have failed every measure used to gauge success.
You or anyone at TSA is free to disprove my suspicions.
December 30, 2008 5:12 PM
This should add more information on the discussion of cash
Terrorist Financing: U.S. Agency Efforts
and Inter-Agency Coordination PDF warning
some discussion points
CBP maintains relationships and coordinates with many agencies in the performance of its border security missions. These include other DHS agencies including Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Coast Guard, and the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA).
This is in referrence to the hidden cash(over 10k) in a shoe that sparked this whole thing....
the USA PATRIOT Act makes it a crime to knowingly conceal more than
$10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments and attempt to transport it into or
outside of the United States.
Again... hope this helps.
December 30, 2008 6:07 PM
Folks ... it seems like we're talking past each other on the whole $10K business.
Clearly there are regulations that state that it is not permitted to take over $10K in currency out of the country without filling out the appropriate forms. That answer has been given numerous times here on this blog. And those rules are not being questioned. (At least by me.)
The problem is: that's not the question that's being asked.
Suppose I come to a TSA checkpoint with $10K in cash, either openly or concealed. It appears that current TSA policy is to question me regarding the currency, to verify I am in compliance with the above referenced regulations.
The problem occurs if I am flying domestically with this cash. I must now "prove", to the satisfaction of the TSA, that I am not flying internationally, and therefore am not subject to this particular regulation. This makes me guilty until I prove my innocence, with no particular standard of "proof" available to me to know what sort of evidence is sufficient to prove my innocence.
It also requires me to reveal to strangers (a) that I am carrying this money, and (b) my final destination. Note that this information is revealed not only to the TSA, but to those strangers standing around me in the screening line, who may be looking to identify someone with valuables to steal.
Of course, I can always request a private screening. But then (a) I may have to explain why I want a private screening to the TSO, forcing me to reveal information publicly yet again, and (b) the fact that I have requested a private screening is itself public, thereby indicating to anyone around me that I have a reason to request such a screening ... which may indicate that I am carrying valuables that would be worth stealing.
And, of course, once the TSA has reason to conduct a deeper search of my belongings (because of the finding of currency), the TSA may find other items which present no threat to aviation, but are nevertheless in violation of the law, exposing me to unrelated jeopardy.
So, let me try to phrase some rather precise questions:
1) Have I stated TSA's current policies and procedures correctly?
[Aside: if passengers had a list of all the TSA rules and regulations we had to follow, this question would be easy for anyone to answer. (Hi, Phil.)]
2) My understanding is that TSA only intentionally looks for "dangerous" items; however, if obviously illegal items are found, those items are referred to local law enforcement. Why is there a presumption that someone carrying $10K in currency at a TSA checkpoint, is in violation of the law?
[Disclaimer: I've never held $10K in currency in my hands in my life, much less attempted to bring it through a checkpoint. So my interest in this is purely theoretical.]
December 30, 2008 6:44 PM
HappyToHelp said...
the USA PATRIOT Act makes it a crime to knowingly conceal more than $10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments and attempt to transport it into or
outside of the United States.
This is NOT in dispute!!!
We are talking about carrying cash TOTALLY within the borders of the USA.
Why can't people read!
STOP bringing up taking cash OUTSIDE the USA, that is NOT the issue.
There is no law that I know of that prevents people from carrying any amount of cash they desire TOTALLY within the borders of the USA.
There is no law that says I can not hide, conceal, or do whatever I wish with my cash that I obtained legally and have declared on my taxes.
If TSA knows of some law, then please post it here for all to see.
I do not want to hear something about taking it out of the country, or drug money, or stolen money.
We all know what is being asked, so STOP answering the question like you can't read simple english.
The question ONCE again:
Please show us the law that states that when traveling within the borders of the USA, and carrying an amount of currency over $10,000, that the US government (TSA) has the right to question or interrogate that person concerning the act of having that currency in their possession.
Also please show us the law that states that the owner of that currency is NOT allowed to conceal it on their person, or hide it, or keep totally quiet about even having it. Again this is about legally obtained currency and traveling TOTALLY within the borders of the USA.
December 30, 2008 7:20 PM
To Ronnie, you say the questions about TSA causing people who have a large amount of currency to be interrogated have been answers.
They have not! Nothing has been posted that shows that TSA has any authority to search for or bring notice of someone to law enforcemennt who has a large sum of cash. A possible exception would be if the funds were hidden in items to disguise what was being carried and only then if the person was leaving or entering the country.
For HappyToHelp.....
The document you've posted is interesting but again does not discuss any enabling legislation that allows TSA to conduct searches or even to bring notice to someone who has a large sum of cash. Again, an exception could possibly be made if the funds are secluded or hidden in some other item.
The questions remains open.
A pointer to the legislation or other documents that enable TSA to refer anyone to Law Enforcement for carrying large sums of cash and who signed said document.
I see no way that this information could jeapordize any sensative programs.
December 30, 2008 7:49 PM
@HappyToHelp: "This is in referrence to the hidden cash(over 10k) in a shoe that sparked this whole thing....
the USA PATRIOT Act makes it a crime to knowingly conceal more than
$10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments and attempt to transport it into or outside of the United States."
If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel. Hence, all your blathering is off topic.
December 30, 2008 8:08 PM
Having TSA provide security is much the same as paying the fellow who shows up monthly at shops and stores to collect their security fee.
Don't pay and see what happens.
Answer: You go to jail for tax evasion. NEXT!
December 30, 2008 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...
so, what exactly happens to a baby who goes through an X-ray machine?
December 30, 2008 2:52 AM
well, for a real life-like simulation, simply place a marshmellow in a microwave for 60 seconds (on high) and observe...It's clear why you people have no clue whats going on in the world. /cry
December 30, 2008 9:08 PM
Ronnie wrote...
Bob, it seems some people will just never be happy no matter what you do. The cash question has been answered again and again. They just don't like the answer. What's that old adage about insanity...?
Ronnie, Ronnie, Ronnie> :o(
THe "cash question" has indeed been answered many times by folks purporting to be the know-all, see-all employees of the TSA.
The only problem with the answers are that they are all different and for the most part mutually exclusive.
On one side we have Blogger Bob telling us how it is SUPPOSED to work, on another we have some line TSOs telling us that regardless of what Bob or the rules say, if they discover large but unspecified amounts of cash "concealed" on or about a traveler, they are required to report that to law enforcement. On yet another side we have other allegedly knowledgeable line TSOs claiming that it actually is unlawful to travel with large amounts of concealed cash. And then there are those also claiming to be TSOs who state they don't have a choice and they must flag the travelers for additional screening.
In reality, they is absolutely no requirement to inform a TSO you have large amounts of money, nor is there any legitimate need for the government to know that unless one is crossing an international border.
So, while the question has been answered many times, it has been answered in so many different voices with different opinions, that it is obvious that TSA needs to seriously retrain their folks at many levels to FOLLOW THE LAWS as written.
Tom (1 or 5-6)
December 30, 2008 9:45 PM
Ronnie said...
Bob, it seems some people will just never be happy no matter what you do. The cash question has been answered again and again. They just don't like the answer. What's that old adage about insanity...?
Ronnie please point me to the answer. There has been no answer to the question posed. Just in case you or anyone else at the TSA is confused as to what the question is I will reiterate it for you.
Faced with the fact that carrying any amount of currency is legal within the United States, what gives the TSA (TSOs, BDOs and all the other initialed employees) the LEGAL (by statute) right to involve a LEO when the TSA discovers a large amount of cash when the passenger is NOT entering or leaving the United States?
December 30, 2008 11:23 PM
It doesn't matter if a person is traveling internationally or within the US in regards to the need for TSA to take notice of a person who has a large amount of cash. It simply is not a concern for TSA to concern themselves with this matter. For travel in to the country or out it would be a concern to Customs.
All I want and have repeatedly asked is for TSA to show me what directives they are operating under that requires them to refer anyone to additional screening/interrogation because the traveler has a large amount of cash and who the official is that signed this directive. Nothing more.
Remember it was just a few weeks ago when the official TSA web page stated it was a crime to have $10K or more on your person for any reason. That has since been changed but that statement indicates the lack understanding of law by TSA legal staff and its employees. How can we expect them to implement any other policy if they cannot do even simple things with understanding?
I suspect that false information has been provided to low level TSA workers and that no directive is in place requiring the referral of people with large amounts of cash.
In other words, I think TSA is acting on made on rules by people who just do not know what the heck they are doing. Who would of thunk it?
On another note; T
Thankfully we have been saved from the dangerous Pillsbury Cinnabon Cinnamon Rolls by a sharp TSO as reported in a another thread. You never know when one of those things will go off, don't cha know!!
Aren't you proud?
December 30, 2008 11:29 PM
[Disclaimer: I've never held $10K in currency in my hands in my life, much less attempted to bring it through a checkpoint. So my interest in this is purely theoretical.]
December 30, 2008 6:44 PM
I handle moderate amounts ($10K and up) of cash daily. Lets face it, in today's world $10K is pretty much chump change.
But the real fact of the matter is that it is simple not TSA's business just how much cash I have or do not have. If a TSO sees cash in my carry-on then they should not draw attention to the fact. They should not ask questions and they should not call Law Enforcement. Nothing has happened that is illegal or that requires explanation to anyone.
Submitting to an Administrative Search is understood. I can also understand why referral would occur should I or anyone else be foolish enough to carry something illegal.
I cannot understand why doing nothing illegal would lead to extra scrutiny or even cause suspicion.
So I have found a mission. I will continue until TSA discloses the directive or retracts this policy of referring anyone to interrogation for possession of cash.
December 30, 2008 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
so, what exactly happens to a baby who goes through an X-ray machine?
-----------------------------
well, for a real life-like simulation, simply place a marshmellow in a microwave for 60 seconds (on high) and observe...It's clear why you people have no clue whats going on in the world. /cry
===============================
Huh? I realise that the xray machines in the airport aren't medical xray machines, but they're certainly not microwaves! They're not going to make the kid explode or melt!
The baby may be subjected to unwisely high radiation levels (I don't know how much higher, compared to if they had a medical xray), and I guess it's possible that that might lead to later health problems, but there's really no comparison to marshmallows in microwaves.
December 31, 2008 3:40 AM
Anonymous wrote:
"@HappyToHelp: "This is in referrence to the hidden cash(over 10k) in a shoe that sparked this whole thing....
the USA PATRIOT Act makes it a crime to knowingly conceal more than
$10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments and attempt to transport it into or outside of the United States."
If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel. Hence, all your blathering is off topic."
Unfortunately, HappyToHelp has never understood that concept. I argued this same point with him a couple of weeks ago, but he could or would not understand.
You know, the TSA should start tracking the ISPs of all these alleged members of the TSA who are giving incorrect information and begin pulling them aside for "retraining." It might put an end to all the incorrect information we are being handed.
December 31, 2008 10:10 AM
Quote: "I ask daily for the enabling legislation that authorizes TSA to submit a person to interrogation just becasue they happen to be have a large amount of cash and bought a ticket to fly on an aircraft owned by a commercial airline."
All I can say is if Mr. Pardo had gone through a TSA CheckPoint with that cash strapped to his leg (He was going to flee to Canada) and a TSO had reported it to a LEO, we may have avoided that shooting/arson that resulted over Christmas. Think about that one.
December 31, 2008 12:00 PM
Also, for all of you crowing about how someone got "Gunpowder" through a CP, maybe you ought to actually read the article. The guy did not bring "Gunpowder" through at all. He brought through 3 seperate elements that have to be combined in very specific quantities and mixed very carefully to even atempt to create a very primitive gunpowder.
The guy even gets his source material by watching a "Star Trek" episode! Yeah, really credible!
Not only that, but he totally destroys any hope of making gunpowder by wetting all the elements! I guess every one of you that quoted the article missed this gem of a quote:
"Mind you, I had packed the stuff safely. It was in three separate jars: one of charcoal, one of sulphur, and one of saltpetre (potassium nitrate). Each jar was labeled: Charcoal, Sulphur, Saltpetre. I had also thoroughly wet down each powder with tap water. No ignition was possible."
Let me reiterate for the slow crowd: "I had also thoroughly wet down each powder with tap water. No ignition was possible."
So I suppose someone has a scenario in mind where he goes into the airplane rest room, spreads out his soaking wet elements, dries them fully (can't even be slightly damp)with a blow driver (without scattering them all over the place), then pulls out his graduated scale, his morter and pestle and carefully makes up some gunpowder. of course, now he has to fashion some kind of delivery device, fuse, ignition source, pack the gunpowder to just the right pressure, etc, etc. All to get an incendiary about the size of an M-80 which probably won't even ignite.
Does he do this while "Arena" (Star Trek episode) runs on his iPod so he can get "accurate" measurements?
And you say the TSA watches too much TV to hatch farfetched plots?!?!
HELLO>>>>>>>????
December 31, 2008 12:15 PM
Quote:
"Sandra said...
You know, the TSA should start tracking the ISPs of all these alleged members of the TSA who are giving incorrect information and begin pulling them aside for "retraining." It might put an end to all the incorrect information we are being handed.
December 31, 2008 10:10 AM"
So it's ok for you to scream about TSAs infringing on passengers rights but you're real quick to suggest that they illegally track IP addresses. Wow! A slippery slope indeed....
December 31, 2008 12:21 PM
On an positive note;
I hope the new year treats all well and brings good fortune.
I hope that new TSA Leadership brings needed and positive change to the agency.
Happy New Year!
RB
December 31, 2008 12:24 PM
Anonymous Said: All I want and have repeatedly asked is for TSA to show me what directives they are operating under that requires them to refer anyone to additional screening/interrogation because the traveler has a large amount of cash and who the official is that signed this directive. Nothing more.
------------------------------
OK. Below are two items. One is an excerpt from the "A Word From Our Lawyers Blog Post" from TSA's Chief Counsel, Francine Kerner. The other is the Operations Directive you have been asking for.
As far as passengers traveling domestically being referred to a supervisor for having $10,000 + of currency, this didn't happen back when i was a TSO. We only referred international passengers. Things may have changed, so I'm doing some research to get you an official answer. I also just e-mailed about 200 of my contacts from various locations around the country to see what's happening at their airports. Stay tuned...
2.21.2008 (From A Word With our Lawyers" Blog Post)
I see that at least one person was troubled by the fact that TSA's screening of airline passengers sometimes yields evidence of crimes not directly related to aviation security. Our responsibility and focus in the airport screening process is to prevent a terrorist attack involving aircraft. In the course of carrying out our mission by screening for weapons and explosives, however, we sometimes incidentally discover illegal items unrelated to transportation security. Federal law and policy require that we refer such items to law enforcement officers for appropriate action. See, for example, United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 617 (2005). Francine Kerner – TSA Chief Counsel
Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
December 31, 2008 12:31 PM
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation of why TSO's refer people to LEO's when contraband is found. Althrough I do not believe that we have to explain ourselves to the public.
December 31, 2008 1:07 PM
If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel. Hence, all your blathering is off topic."
___________________________________
Thanks Sandra.... Neither are we. Anyon can travel with as much money as they want internationally. If a large amount of money is found the person will be questioned to see where they are flying to. That is it. There is no harm done in asking. If they are not traveling outside of the country than there is no issue. Thanks for all of your concern.
December 31, 2008 1:14 PM
CJ said...
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
so, what exactly happens to a baby who goes through an X-ray machine?
-----------------------------
well, for a real life-like simulation, simply place a marshmellow in a microwave for 60 seconds (on high) and observe...It's clear why you people have no clue whats going on in the world. /cry
===============================
Huh? I realise that the xray machines in the airport aren't medical xray machines, but they're certainly not microwaves! They're not going to make the kid explode or melt!
The baby may be subjected to unwisely high radiation levels (I don't know how much higher, compared to if they had a medical xray), and I guess it's possible that that might lead to later health problems, but there's really no comparison to marshmallows in microwaves.
December 31, 2008 3:40 AM
___________________________________
The xray machines are not going to harm the baby. It is not the smartest idea to put your child through the xray. But it is just a little radiation. Just like the hospital xrays. It is not going to harm anyone.
December 31, 2008 1:18 PM
Bob said...
Anonymous Said: All I want and have repeatedly asked is for TSA to show me what directives they are operating under that requires them to refer anyone to additional screening/interrogation because the traveler has a large amount of cash and who the official is that signed this directive. Nothing more.
------------------------------
Thanks Bob. Finally something concrete. Why did it take so much effort for such little return.
The bit from your lawyers does not address cash. Plain and simple.
The second piece determines that $10K cash or more is contraband. I think this decision is flawed and should be reviewed by your legal staff.
How can something that is perfectly legal and safe suddenly become contraband when someone enters a TSA Dragnet Checkpoint?
When did American currency become contraband?
These types of statements and decisions by supposedly public servants are what injure the American people and our Constitution.
Freedom is not lost all in one fell swoop, but bit by bit over time. Actions like this by TSA chips away at our freedoms without recourse. TSA casues more harm than any good it does.
I maintain that the TSA and its employees are a danger to the United States of America.
A Clear and Present Danger!
December 31, 2008 1:20 PM
If a large amount of money is found the person will be questioned to see where they are flying to. That is it. There is no harm done in asking. If they are not traveling outside of the country than there is no issue. Thanks for all of your concern.
.............................
Absolutely disagree!!!!
There is harm when the government sticks its nose in a citizens private business.
That is what freedom is all about.
It is not a responsibility of TSA to track currency.
December 31, 2008 1:23 PM
All I can say is if Mr. Pardo had gone through a TSA CheckPoint with that cash strapped to his leg (He was going to flee to Canada) and a TSO had reported it to a LEO, we may have avoided that shooting/arson that resulted over Christmas. Think about that one.
December 31, 2008 12:00 PM
???????????????????????????????
You seem confuse over the facts of this case.
He shot, burned then fled.
How would discovery of the cash after the fact prevented anything other than his escape had he not burned himself so badly.
I see, more TSA logic at work.
Good job, TSO!
December 31, 2008 1:30 PM
To the Anonymous commenting on gunpowder... The proportions of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur are fairly relaxed, get 'em wrong within a few percent and you just have some leftover residue with more of whatever in it than expected, but the gunpowder still works.
When I was a 12 year old kid I made quite a bit of basic black powder, and by thirteen was adding to the interesting effects by adding a layer of thermite (iron oxide and aluminum oxide). I do believe it would burn a respectable hole in an aircraft without too much trouble (used to burn holes in concrete pretty well). Unmixed, the stuff is all pretty tame, and could easily be "art supplies" in someone's kit.
Could I mix the powders up in the aircraft lav? Sure. No problem.
Am I an explosives expert? No. In fact, rather then an explosive I would probably aim toward an intense heat source...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
December 31, 2008 1:40 PM
Jonathan J. Fleming: currently serves as Founder and Chief Executive Officer of S2 Global, a provider of scanning and screening security solution to provide safe transportation of goods and passengers, combat illegal shipments, and protect critical infrastructure domestically and abroad.
.............................
Ah ha, and just how many contracts does DHS/TSA with his company, S@ Global?
Former TSA CEO starts up a company that makes scanning equipement and who would happen to be the prime customer.
Why am I not surprised?
December 31, 2008 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Also, for all of you crowing about how someone got "Gunpowder" through a CP, maybe you ought to actually read the article.
.........................
Perhaps you did not understand the article.
The writers intent was to prove that materials for an incendiary could be taken through a TSA checkpoint undetected.
In order to demonstrate that he/she had no intent to make such a device is why the materials where dampened with water.
Had this been a real bad guy a weapon of some sort could have been constructed once airborne.
The writer did get the materials through the TSA checkpoint.
You guys were probably to busy looking for cinnamon rolls or cash money!
December 31, 2008 2:02 PM
Sandra suggested ...
You know, the TSA should start tracking the ISPs of all these alleged members of the TSA who are giving incorrect information and begin pulling them aside for "retraining." It might put an end to all the incorrect information we are being handed.
*********************************
I made a similar suggestion, off-line, to Blogger Bob & his compatriots, sans the tracking of ISP's, when the blog first started. I suggested they take these incredibly wrong posts, santize for identity (not that the posters don't already do that themselves anyway) & send out to ALL TSA staff w/the correct information; no idea if it's happened, but given some of the Anon responses we keep seeing, I suspect not.
Then another Anon TSA'er came along & made this 'comment':
Bob,
Althrough I do not believe that we have to explain ourselves to the public.
*******************************
Bob-can you please explain to your colleague why & how this statement is so very, very, VERY wrong? (Before one of the regulars does it for you?) Just a suggestion.
Finally, Bob stated:
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
**********************************
Can you please provide the statute that makes 'large amounts of cash (10,000.00' 'contraband' under US law? Preferably the one Mr. Fleming, or your lawyers, used to come to this conclusion?
Finally, when should we expect to receive answers to the questions I posted on 12/22/08 & 12/23/08 that were in direct response to the original blog entry? Inquiring minds, you know!
December 31, 2008 2:08 PM
"If a large amount of money is found the person will be questioned to see where they are flying to. That is it. There is no harm done in asking. If they are not traveling outside of the country than there is no issue. Thanks for all of your concern."
The TSA KNOWS the person's destination; no need to ask.
I, for one, would not tell you my final destination and there is nothing you can do about that.
December 31, 2008 2:09 PM
If a large amount of money is found the person will be questioned to see where they are flying to. That is it. There is no harm done in asking. If they are not traveling outside of the country than there is no issue. Thanks for all of your concern.
.............................
Absolutely disagree!!!!
There is harm when the government sticks its nose in a citizens private business.
That is what freedom is all about.
It is not a responsibility of TSA to track currency.
___________________________________
Get a life
December 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Just wondering, do TSO's who operated xray equipment or stand near this type of equipment wear dosimeters?
December 31, 2008 2:16 PM
Bob, over $10,000 in cash in NOT contraband; it is perfectly legal.
What you wrote is in direct contradiction to the TSA guidelines on the website:
"It is legal to transport any amount of currency or other monetary instruments into or out of the United States."
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1848.shtm
Someone has once again screwed up royally.
December 31, 2008 2:18 PM
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
Wow, now it seems appointed (not elected) officials are making laws.
Can you give us where Mr Fleming has the authority to make laws and declare US currency as contraband. Is it only contraband at a checkpoint?
What else is on the list?
December 31, 2008 2:26 PM
Way to cherry pick Sandra. Why didn't you post the very next sentence? I've already posted it once.
Here is what Sandra left out: (Follow her link if you want to see it with your own eyes)
However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign place, or into the United States from any foreign place, you must file a report with U.S. Customs.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
December 31, 2008 2:33 PM
Bob said...
Way to cherry pick Sandra. Why didn't you post the very next sentence? I've already posted it once.
Here is what Sandra left out: (Follow her link if you want to see it with your own eyes)
However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign place, or into the United States from any foreign place, you must file a report with U.S. Customs.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
..............................
Exact and accurate information.
Just what is TSA's responsibility here?
NONE, that is the problem!!
December 31, 2008 2:48 PM
Bob, Bob, Bob,
Sandra's not cherry picking.
This whole conversation has been about travel within the USA.
Every time the TSA spokespeople reference travel outside the USA, they are guilty of context cutting and cherry picking.
December 31, 2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous wrote:
"So it's ok for you to scream about TSAs infringing on passengers rights but you're real quick to suggest that they illegally track IP addresses. Wow! A slippery slope indeed...."
Tell that to those members of the TSA who used to post on FlyerTalk, often with very accurate and helpful information, but were tracked down by the TSA and told to stop posting or were threatened with being fired.
December 31, 2008 2:54 PM
However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign place, or into the United States from any foreign place, you must file a report with U.S. Customs.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
/////////////////////////////
Exact an accurate information Bob.
But can you tell me what TSA's roll is in this?
Oh, thats right it has no roll in currency control!
December 31, 2008 2:56 PM
If a large amount of money is found the person will be questioned to see where they are flying to. That is it. There is no harm done in asking. If they are not traveling outside of the country than there is no issue. Thanks for all of your concern.
.............................
Absolutely disagree!!!!
There is harm when the government sticks its nose in a citizens private business.
That is what freedom is all about.
It is not a responsibility of TSA to track currency.
___________________________________
Get a life
December 31, 2008 2:13 PM
___________________________________
Why thank you!
I have a very nice life but have been forced to defend my Constitution since TSA seems intenet on causing it great harm.
Hopefully I will take down a few DHS/TSA employees on my way.
December 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Bob, CASH CANNOT BE BOTH LEGAL AND CONTRABAND AT THE SAME TIME!!!!
Contraband means:
"Goods prohibited from being imported or exported."
Not having a declaration if one is traveling international makes the carrying of >$10,000 illegal but does not make it contraband.
Contraband cannot be made legal by the filing of a particular piece of paper.
December 31, 2008 3:06 PM
I find it amazing that TSA keeps finding itself defending its illegal actions which have no bearing on Transportation Safety yet fails every reasonable test of what it should be doing.
How can any one agency be so incompetent?
Even a child learns that touching a hot stove hurts!
December 31, 2008 3:58 PM
Bob,
As far as passengers traveling domestically being referred to a supervisor for having $10,000 + of currency, this didn't happen back when i was a TSO. We only referred international passengers. Things may have changed, so I'm doing some research to get you an official answer.
How would you have known whether or not a given passenger was a domestic or an international passenger? The destination given on their boarding pass is hardly useful; unless I'm greatly mistaken, if I make an international flight that starts with a domestic connecting flight, the boarding pass I show at the TSA checkpoint will only show my domestic flight. (After all, I have a separate boarding pass for my connecting flight.)
So, if I show you an international boarding pass, you know I'm flying to an international destination. But if I show you a domestic boarding pass, you don't know anything about whether I'm flying domestically or internationally.
Or am I missing something here?
December 31, 2008 4:05 PM
Blogger Bob I think it would have been easier on you to discuss the new and improved illegal ID verification at the check points than the wrongheaded currency contraband policy.
Trollkiller's Blog
December 31, 2008 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation of why TSO's refer people to LEO's when contraband is found. Althrough I do not believe that we have to explain ourselves to the public.
YOU WORK FOR US. Get that through your skull and you will understand why you have to explain yourselves to the public.
Trollkiller's Blog
December 31, 2008 4:35 PM
Blogger Bob said...
Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Thanks Blogger Bob for pointing us to the offending document. Now that we know where it is we can accurately complain.
Who would be the best person to go to on this? I have already tried the Office of the Inspector General for the illegal ID verification but once it made it to the Chief Counsel’s Office it was promptly ignored. Well sort of ignored, the law did get changed but still left the forced ID verification illegal.
BTW Hi honey, I am home.
December 31, 2008 4:54 PM
Sandra said...
If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel.
International travel has to do with the why's. Why does TSA make referrals based off of cash amounts? If that was not the question you were asking I would hope you would be able to determine on your own that my response was not directed to you or anyone else that is asking different questions on the same subject(can't help everyone).
I know you are very defensive when you feel people are ganging up on you or are singling you out, but you need to take a step back and a deep breath. Life is to short. :p
Bob said...
We only referred international passengers. Things may have changed, so I'm doing some research to get you an official answer. I also just e-mailed about 200 of my contacts from various locations around the country to see what's happening at their airports. Stay tuned...
Thanks Bob. I'm glad a much needed conclusion is coming on this subject. Keep us posted.
December 31, 2008 5:46 PM
Quote from Sandra: "Anonymous wrote:
"So it's ok for you to scream about TSAs infringing on passengers rights but you're real quick to suggest that they illegally track IP addresses. Wow! A slippery slope indeed...."
Tell that to those members of the TSA who used to post on FlyerTalk, often with very accurate and helpful information, but were tracked down by the TSA and told to stop posting or were threatened with being fired."
Sandra's right. I know of at least one CATSA screener and 2 TSA screeners who left FlyerTalk and subsequently lost their jobs. There's possibly more. I know the CATSA screener caused an alert to go out - other CATSA screeners reported a memo going out about discussing security online. I believe the CATSA screener was facing legal sanctions as well.
Yes, TSA and its Canadian counterpart CATSA seem to have no qualms about going after helpful screeners on other sites. I even warned HSVTSO Dean about it when he first started posting there that TSA folks had a tendency to disappear from FlyerTalk. Fortunately, he's still there. But we do know for sure that TSA and CATSA are spying on its employees there.
So, yeah, they're doing it. If they're going to nail helpful people who are actually trying to help the public navigate the mess TSA has created, it should also work on reigning in the people who are muddling the process. If anything, NOT muddling TSO's who are constantly spouting contradicting information and retraining them in the proper process would actually help security. That's what we're trying to do here, improve security, right? It'd also eliminate the "airport X doesn't do it right. We at airport Y do" when it comes to inconsistency.
If they're going to abuse the public's rights, why not its employees too? Maybe if they get what we're getting, they'll suddenly stop thinking it's ok. Or is this another case of "Everyone is created equal. However, some are more equal than others."?
It wouldn't surprise me if TSA has figured out where I live, what my IP is, and so forth. It also makes me wonder if it's how my 4 year old son ended up on the tripping the no fly list last time I flew with him.
TSA should be an equal opportunity abuser if it's going to abuse people.
Robert
December 31, 2008 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation of why TSO's refer people to LEO's when contraband is found. Althrough I do not believe that we have to explain ourselves to the public.
December 31, 2008 1:07 PM
/////////////////////////
"Althrough I do not believe that we have to explain ourselves to the public."
Thank you unknown TSA employee.
Remarks like yours do much more to discredit your agency than I could ever accomplish in a life time.
I thank you!
December 31, 2008 11:19 PM
Jim Huggins wrote...
Bob,
How would you have known whether or not a given passenger was a domestic or an international passenger? The destination given on their boarding pass is hardly useful; unless I'm greatly mistaken, if I make an international flight that starts with a domestic connecting flight, the boarding pass I show at the TSA checkpoint will only show my domestic flight. (After all, I have a separate boarding pass for my connecting flight.)
So, if I show you an international boarding pass, you know I'm flying to an international destination. But if I show you a domestic boarding pass, you don't know anything about whether I'm flying domestically or internationally.
Or am I missing something here?
________________
Jim, I don't know about all US Airports with international originations, but those few that I have flown out of to non-US destinations had separate "International" concourses, so if you were at a domestic concourse, you were NOT flying out of the country from there...
If I fly from SEA to LAX, for example, I'm not leaving the country - at least not without going through a TSA chokepoint again.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 1, 2009 1:18 AM
You did it again, HappyToHelp, i.e., ascribing something another poster said to me:
Anonymous wrote:
"@HappyToHelp: "This is in referrence to the hidden cash(over 10k) in a shoe that sparked this whole thing....
the USA PATRIOT Act makes it a crime to knowingly conceal more than
$10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments and attempt to transport it into or outside of the United States."
If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel. Hence, all your blathering is off topic.
December 30, 2008 8:08 PM"
Please know who you are quoting when you write something.
January 1, 2009 8:19 AM
Thanks Bob. I'm glad a much needed conclusion is coming on this subject. Keep us posted.
December 31, 2008 5:46 PM
Got some news for ya Happy-to-Help. This money thing, it's just getting started.
We have some questions to resolve:
When did TSA get the authority to determine that anything is "Contraband" for the whole United States?
I suggest you go and read the definition for "Contraband".
What ever happened to those people called United States Congressmen who are charged with making law? I suspect they will be amused with TSA's attempt to replace them.
Since TSA has decided that Large Amounts of Money can not be imported or exported to this country since TSA has classified it as "Contraband" I suspect many large commercial and world bank operations will now have to be charged with smuggling. I'll be sure to inform the FBI that they are falling down on their job of enforcing TSA LAW.
Then I suspect your Inspector General will have some work in the new year with questions about these TSA LAWS that have not been enacted in the usual manner for a democracy but heck, who cares about that, right?
No, we are just getting started on this.
I see a very productive year ahead of me. How about you and your TSA comrades?
January 1, 2009 9:45 AM
The following comments were borrowed from another source but demonstrate the problems with TSA taking note of cash very well and futher illustrates how TSA and its screeners abuse their authority and the rights of travelers, for your reading pleasure;
I have a family member who refuses to use ATMs (yes, I know it's absurd and tell him regularly) and always travels with a few thousand in cash on his person. On a recent domestic trip, the TSA noticed his cash stash during a bag check at the checkpoint. They asked him how much was there. He told them he didn't know (he knew the ballpark number, but didn't know the exact amount), but that it wasn't enough to be illegal if transported out of the country--and he wasn't leaving the country anyway.
He was taken into the Magical Mystery Booth where the screener and his supervisor counted out all his money (including going through his wallet), searched his person and possessions, asked for all his personal information, and then filed out a bunch of forms they wouldn't let him see.</B
Now lets have a count of hands who are ok the this.
January 1, 2009 9:58 AM
Tomas:
Jim, I don't know about all US Airports with international originations, but those few that I have flown out of to non-US destinations had separate "International" concourses, so if you were at a domestic concourse, you were NOT flying out of the country from there...
If I fly from SEA to LAX, for example, I'm not leaving the country - at least not without going through a TSA chokepoint again.
Must depend on the airport, then. At the McNamara (Northwest) terminal in DTW, international and domestic flights depart from the same concourse, side-by-side. So my original scenario still holds. (I don't know how common that is among other airports, of course.)
January 1, 2009 12:16 PM
I don't think that amount is contraband I just think they are saying if you have that much you will get "extra attention". A referral to law enforcement does not make something you are doing illegal.
January 1, 2009 3:19 PM
Sandra said...
Please know who you are quoting when you write something.
I have both the reposter(you) and the original author(Anonymous) on the post. Who else do you want me to include? I will include anyone you want Sandra.
RB said...
Got some news for ya Happy-to-Help. This money thing, it's just getting started.
Okay. Do what you have to. I wish you the best. Not sure of what kind of response you want or why you are so hostile towards anyone who posts links to information to furthor online discussions.
RB said...
Since TSA has decided that Large Amounts of Money can not be imported or exported to this country since TSA has classified it as "Contraband"
Flat out wrong. Your just taking the "contraband" out of context. Read the report. Cash is not a TSA prohibited iteam. Go ahead and twist words all you want. Its fun but won't do anything.
RB said...
I see a very productive year ahead of me. How about you and your TSA comrades?
Awsome. Thanks for asking. I am looking forward to liquids returning to the checkpoint without restriction. I can't wait to fly with my gaterade again. It going to be interesting to see TSA go union and the effects it will have at the checkpoint.
Later folks
January 1, 2009 6:08 PM
" why you are so hostile towards anyone who posts links to information to furthor online discussions."
"Happy", the links you post are often off the point and do not actually address the topic.
But what else would we expect from someone who claims that a sign they saw in some aiport proves hat there are no secret laws in America?
January 2, 2009 7:09 AM
HappyToHelp wrote:
"I have both the reposter(you) and the original author(Anonymous) on the post. Who else do you want me to include? I will include anyone you want Sandra."
However, you quoted me as being the original poster of the paragraph:
"If unlike Bob you had actually read the previous posts, you would see that we are NOT talking about international travel. Hence, all your blathering is off topic."
In a court of law, your attributing those words to me could be considered libelous.
"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images."
(Wikipedia for the definition above.)
Be careful of what you write, HappyToHelp.
On the topic of currency, I have forwarded Bob's post about large amounts of cash being considered "contraband" by the to my legislators as I believe they will be interested to learn that the TSA has aligned such with illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
January 2, 2009 10:26 AM
To Happy to Help...
"RB said...
Since TSA has decided that Large Amounts of Money can not be imported or exported to this country since TSA has classified it as "Contraband"
Flat out wrong. Your just taking the "contraband" out of context. Read the report. Cash is not a TSA prohibited iteam. Go ahead and twist words all you want. Its fun but won't do anything."
First I understand that TSA and its East German Enclave may have some issues with english definitions of words so I'll try to help you out.
______________________________
From Merriam-Webster;
contraband
One entry found.
Sponsored LinksContraband Definition
What Is Contraband? Find Out w/the Dictionary Toolbar
Dictionary.alottoolbars.com
Main Entry: con·tra·band
Pronunciation: \ˈkän-trə-ˌband\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian contrabbando, from Medieval Latin contrabannum, from contra- + bannus, bannum decree, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German bannan to command — more at ban
Date: circa 1529
1: illegal or prohibited traffic in goods : smuggling
2: goods or merchandise whose importation, exportation, or possession is forbidden ; also : smuggled goods
________________________________
There was a third definition but did not apply to this discussion.
________________________________
From Bob's post: "Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
________________________________
So TSA has determined that Cash Money is Contraband. And without full consideration did not realize that any amount of an item that is classified as "Contraband" is not permitted.
Otherwise a case could be made that certain amounts of illegal drugs or other real prohibited items are not "Contraband".
The real issue though is that TSA is not an agency tasked with control of currency. Not in any way, shape or form.
TSA has stated that they cannot do all of the jobs Congress has mandated because of cost, lack of manpower or any number of other excuses. Perhaps if TSA did only what it is tasked to do it could find those resources.
You say I am "Flat out Wrong", I don't think so.
January 2, 2009 11:16 AM
It's interesting that >$10,000 is not contraband at the corner of Main and Elm Streets, but suddenly becomes so at the checkpoint.
RB, it would seem that TSA policy was NOT followed in the case you cited:
"He was taken into the Magical Mystery Booth where the screener and his supervisor counted out all his money (including going through his wallet), searched his person and possessions, asked for all his personal information, and then filed out a bunch of forms they wouldn't let him see."
because as Blogger Bob posted:
"Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated."
Of course, why should the TSA not following policy be any surprise?
January 2, 2009 1:11 PM
Robert Johnson wrote:
I even warned HSVTSO Dean about it when he first started posting there that TSA folks had a tendency to disappear from FlyerTalk. Fortunately, he's still there.
Two reasons:
(1) I'm careful not to disclose security-sensitive information. :D From what I understand, a good number of screeners, whether they work for CATSA or TSA, in an effort to be helpful to our fellow citizens, got a little bit *too* helpful and stepped across the line. It's a fine balancing act, but I've pulled it off pretty well so far.
(2) I don't have local management who view what I'm doing as bad, and therefore they aren't restricting my freedom of speech (as, when I'm posting to here or to FT, I am a private citizen and not a representative of the TSA). I know of other screeners who, while not doing anything to bring the ire of TSA as an official agency (such as releasing SSI, even inadvertantly), were told very bluntly by their management or Federal Security Directors that they should cease and desist.
Tch.
Either way. Yeah, I'm still here. Still doing what I can, but there hasn't been too much to talk about for me here on the Blog lately — most of the things being covered here lately are way over and beyond my field of expertise, and I'm not interested in getting into a slugging match over... well... some of the things some of the other TSOs seem interested in getting into, here.
January 2, 2009 4:54 PM
Of course, why should the TSA not following policy be any surprise?
--------------------------
How would a casual traveler know if TSA is following policy or not since it seems all the rules TSA works by are secret?
How many times has a list of rules a traveler must conform to been ask for by posters to this forum?
Is it any wonder that anger and disgust is growing daily by citizens subjected to the police state tactics of the TSA?
January 2, 2009 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...
So TSA has determined that Cash Money is Contraband. And without full consideration did not realize that any amount of an item that is classified as "Contraband" is not permitted.
Please post your source about contraband not allowed through the checkpoint?
When contraband is NOT on the prohibited iteams list, it is only referred to law enforement per the directive. Thats all. The directive does not say that money is not allowed through the checkpoint. A example would be medical marihuana(if accidentally found). It gets a refferel to law enforcement and then the local airport police department lets it through(states that are applicable).
Sandra said...
In a court of law, your attributing those words to me could be considered libelous.
I will see you in court LOL. I would love to hear your claims on damages. Who else did you want me to add to that post again? I quoted the post just like it was(copy and paste). I believe it to be accaurate.
Anonymous said...
First I understand that TSA and its East German Enclave may have some issues with english definitions of words so I'll try to help you out.
Thanks for the help :p (yes I will kill you with kindness).
In normal cases you would be right. You need to look at the this...
"When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is (1)not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers (2)as appropriate. An (3)Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
(1) Cash is not on the prohibited items list.
(2)Sorry can't comment on this. As I would have to disclose procedure.
(3)TSA does no furthor action. Not in TSA's jurisdiction.
Anonymous said...
"Happy", the links you post are often off the point and do not actually address the topic.
Just do what I do. If I find a post not applicable then I just ignore it. The post might not even be directed towards you. Just food for thought.
Sorry I am a little late on this.
Happy new year to the EoS Blog team.
-H2H
January 2, 2009 9:41 PM
Returning to the topic:
"If any TSO saw this incident about to occur, it would not have happened."
Here's the problem -- one that the Israelis encountered more than a decade ago (and others, before then), but you guys haven't yet caught onto -- if you deny access to the previous target (in this case, presumably, aircraft carrying hundreds of people), the terrorists will focus on an easier, but equally effective target, such as the hundreds of people queued prior to the "sterile area."
When the Israelis stepped-up the screening procedures at their checkpoints along the West Bank, during the second Intifadah, preventing the passage of explosives and weapons, PIJ, Al Aqsa and Hamas, to name a few, began targeting the checkpoints, themselves.
The same tactic has been regularly used, to deadly effect, against the Green Zone checkpoints. Amazingly, the TSA, under Kip Hawley's keen and insightful leadership, has yet to catch on.
Fighting the previous threat, while offering up a juicy target with the excuse that it's outside your literal jurisdiction is just begging for trouble.
But, hey, why should any of you care? After all, you shouldn't expect to have a job in 19 to 30 days.
January 2, 2009 10:49 PM
"I don't know about all US Airports with international originations, but those few that I have flown out of to non-US destinations had separate "International" concourses, so if you were at a domestic concourse, you were NOT flying out of the country from there..."
US airports are completely different. There is no need for exit passport control (and it should stay that way) so int'l flights can leave from the same concourse as domestic flights (you have to prove you're going int'l to buy duty-free).
January 3, 2009 12:46 AM
HappyToHelp said...
Anonymous said...
So TSA has determined that Cash Money is Contraband. And without full consideration did not realize that any amount of an item that is classified as "Contraband" is not permitted.
Please post your source about contraband not allowed through the checkpoint?
.....................
H2H, I think what you are missing is that TSA decided that $10K cash is contraband. There is no question on that point.
The problem is that any thing defined as contraband is the whole item, not an amount of the item. Cocaine is contrband, not just amounts over say 1 pound.
The TSA policy is flawed in a most basic manner. Something is contraband or is not.
Finally, any thing that is contraband is not legal and American currency legal.
January 4, 2009 8:50 PM
I believe TSA is sticking around. Most other countries have government provided security for airports not private companies. It is much easier to have the government regulate the security if it is done by the government. TSA I doubt is going anywhere. And it is congress that would do away with TSA not the president. Just cause a new president is in office doesn't mean much for TSA. Just new leadership at the top of their office.
January 5, 2009 11:33 AM
Just cause a new president is in office doesn't mean much for TSA. Just new leadership at the top of their office.
I actually think it could mean much, although I'll reserve judgment until I see what actually happens. The TSA, as it currently operates, reflects the Bush administration that created it. It is dubiously competent and questionably effective; it places itself above the law and considers itself infallible; it imposes arbitrary requirements and implements them capriciously; it's obsessed with secrecy; it continually demonstrates arrogant contempt for both the public and for the rule of law; it continually attempts to expand its power and authority; it avoids any accountability for its actions and policies; and it deflects questions and criticisms by invoking fear and terror.
A TSA under an administration that respects the rule of law as well as respecting the public it serves is likely to act differently. Accordingly, it is likely to enjoy the respect of the public and to perform its mission more effectively (and more cost-effectively, measured in civil liberties as well as dollars). But given the nature of any bureaucracy, such change will occur slowly and reluctantly if it occurs at all. Still, there is at least a reasonable hope that a change in policy and attitude at the top could eventually filter down to real improvements at airport checkpoints.
January 6, 2009 1:09 AM
H to H mumbled the following....
When contraband is NOT on the prohibited iteams list, it is only referred to law enforement per the directive. Thats all. The directive does not say that money is not allowed through the checkpoint. A example would be medical marihuana(if accidentally found). It gets a refferel to law enforcement and then the local airport police department lets it through(states that are applicable).
...........................
Apples and Oranges
Marijuana is illegal everywhere under Federal Law. Calling it Medical Marijuana does not change that. While some states have passed legislation reducing penalties for marijuana they donot overide Federal law.
United States currency on the other hand is legal everywhere. No laws are on the books making currency issued by the United States Treasury illegal. NONE
Cash money is not illegal.
January 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"While some states have passed legislation reducing penalties for marijuana they do not overide Federal law."
I believe you are mistaken. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court last year means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical marijuana laws adopted by voters or state legislatures.
In that case, the police department for the City of Garden Grove, California -- in defiance of a court order -- refused to return marijuana that an officer had seized from a state-legal medical marijuana patient. In October 2005, the city appealed the court order, arguing that it couldn’t obey state law by returning the marijuana because doing so would amount to a federal crime. The state’s Fourth District Court of Appeals sided with the lower court and ruled that "it is not the job of local police to enforce federal drug laws."
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 7, 2009 10:31 PM
I'd rather see the TSA on 20/20 with John Stossel. Doubt they would do that and have the obvious fraud of this charade exposed so clearly.
January 8, 2009 10:11 AM
"While some states have passed legislation reducing penalties for marijuana they do not overide Federal law."
What country are you living in? According to the Constitution all laws are made by the states and what powers they do not reserve also belong to the states. The Federal gets only what the states clearly and specifically state! The State law overrides ALL federal laws. The state is sovereign. This is a Republic, not the USSR as you would like it to be.
January 8, 2009 10:16 AM
The state’s Fourth District Court of Appeals sided with the lower court and ruled that "it is not the job of local police to enforce federal drug laws."
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 7, 2009 10:31 PM
..........................
It may not be their job but the decision did not change the Federal law one bit.
Under Federal law marijuana is illegal.
A Federal Officer could arrest and charge those who have medical marijuana on their person.
January 8, 2009 10:18 AM
Quote from RB: "A Federal Officer could arrest and charge those who have medical marijuana on their person."
Correction. A Federal Law Enforcement Officer. As written, that would imply a TSA "officer" would have power to do that.
I know what you're getting at, but those newly joining us may not. :)
Robert
January 8, 2009 1:22 PM
RB said....
Apples and Oranges
I have to disagree. All the "contraband" above deals with partnerships. Either with the local Law Enforcement or with CBP. If you don't like are partnerships thats okay but to believe that you can't get through a checkpoint without your money(over 10k) is just way off base. I understand that your worried about having your money siezed. You need to shift fire over to our partners. TSA will never sieze your money or fine you for carring any amount of money.
Many people travel with money all the time through TSA checkpoints.
Consider this scenario. A man is carring a case full of money(lets say over 10k). He submits his case for screening. The xray operator determines that there are no prohibited item in the case(Prohibited Items list). The bag leaves the xray. The man moves on.
Its to the point RB that ,though I value your opions, we are going to have to agree to disagree. LOL and I'm glad you could hear my mumbling. As you can tell I am very pro partnership and I believe this is one of the few good things TSA inherited from the FAA.
-H2H
January 8, 2009 5:39 PM
Correction. A Federal Law Enforcement Officer. As written, that would imply a TSA "officer" would have power to do that.
I know what you're getting at, but those newly joining us may not. :)
Robert
January 8, 2009 1:22 PM
Accepted. I don't consider Baggage Screeners to be officers. Some may.
January 8, 2009 7:31 PM
I ONLY HAVE AN OFF THE WALL QUESTION .
IF TSA SECURITY IS SO IMPORTANT
WHY IS GEORGE BUSH ALLOWING THE WORLD TO SEE AIRFORCE ONE & THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL , 2 DAZE BEFORE THE INNAGURATION OF the 44 th president of the good ole u.s.a.??
January 18, 2009 3:58 PM
At least you guys are giving some notice to Schiener. That should make some of the crowd happy. :)
February 7, 2009 3:39 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home