As a luggage screening supervisor I will ask you all to not lock your luggage. Those that are locked will be forced open. If you have valuables, use a carry on luggage piece for them. If things are missing the airlines are still responsible. I will say though that after having to remove quite a few locks that a pair of pliers takes care of about most of them.

I don't think anyone locks their luggage thinking that is going to keep a baggage thrower from getting at it if he wishes. The reason I lock mine, particularly folding garment bags, is to ensure that they stay closed.

Why can't we put an unlocked lock through the zippers, and after you're done searching, you lock it up for us?

I had my locks cut off in mid-December. No twist ties were put on the zippers, and no search notification was left in my luggage!

[This message has been edited by csb (edited 01-23-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
If things are missing the airlines are still responsible. </font>

According to the information at the TSA website, this my not be the case:

Baggage Security Checkpoints (http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/display?theme=53)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Missing Contents

TSA screeners exercise great care during the screening process to ensure that your contents are returned to your bag every time a bag needs to be opened. TSA will assess, on an individual basis, any loss or damage claims made to TSA. You may call the TSA Consumer Response Center toll-free at 1-866-289-9673 if you have questions.</font>

This website also suggests using cable ties as an alternative to locks and states that if your luggage needs to be searched, the ties will be cut and then replaced. Is this true??

The notices put in the luggage state that a Tamper-Evident Seal "HAS" been placed on your luggage.

I now have 8 of these notices and NOT one "Tamper-Evident" seal.

So, it would seem that they are not going to bother following there own notices.

tsadude,

Just so we are clear:

The TSA does not want us to lock our luggage and if we do and the luggage requires a secondary screening, the lock will be cut off. BUT, if anything is stolen, we have to duke it out with the airlines.

Surely, you must personally think this is idiotic.

Btw, the TSA website says the following:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Can I transport guns or firearms?
Guns and firearms are NOT permitted in your carry-on baggage, but depending on the policy of your airline, may be included with your checked baggage. Check with your airline or travel agent to see if firearms are permitted in checked baggage on the airline you are flying. Firearms carried as checked baggage MUST be unloaded, packed in a locked hard-sided case, and declared to the airline at check-in. Only you, the passenger, may have the key or combination. You should never unlock your bag if the gun is not placed within a separate locked, hard-sided case inside your checked bag. TSA will NOT force open locked baggage if it knows the baggage contains guns or ammunition. If we have to open your checked bag containing a gun or ammunition, we will make every effort to contact you and have you open the bag for our screeners. If we cannot clear your bag, then your bag will not make your flight.</font>

http://www.tsa.gov/public/faq.jsp

I hope all TSA employees are aware of this. Incidentally, this seems to be one method of forcing a landside check at airside airports albeit with the risk of the luggage not making the flight.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
tsadude,

Just so we are clear:

The TSA does not want us to lock our luggage and if we do and the luggage requires a secondary screening, the lock will be cut off. BUT, if anything is stolen, we have to duke it out with the airlines.

Surely, you must personally think this is idiotic.</font>

Just because your luggage has a lock does not mean it is a automatic search, but if the machine does not like what it sees in your bag and it is locked, it will be forced open.You always had to duke it out with the airlines for stolen stuff or did this change?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by csb:
I don't think anyone locks their luggage thinking that is going to keep a baggage thrower from getting at it if he wishes. The reason I lock mine, particularly folding garment bags, is to ensure that they stay closed.

Why can't we put an unlocked lock through the zippers, and after you're done searching, you lock it up for us?

I had my locks cut off in mid-December. No twist ties were put on the zippers, and no search notification was left in my luggage!

[This message has been edited by csb (edited 01-23-2003).]</font>

Use a plastic zip tie for now. We prefer for you not to leave your lock unsecure, it will probably fall off and we will never see it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
The notices put in the luggage state that a Tamper-Evident Seal "HAS" been placed on your luggage.

I now have 8 of these notices and NOT one "Tamper-Evident" seal.

So, it would seem that they are not going to bother following there own notices.</font>

Seals are on the way. We are using zip ties for now. Disclaimer, FL is using zip ties right now. I cannot speak for everywhere else.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
You always had to duke it out with the airlines for stolen stuff or did this change?

</font>

Yes, this did change. When the TSA started telling us we had to leave our luggage unlocked.

tsadude,

Let me once again thank you for your participation. For you to come here and engage in this debate with us shows me that you take your job very seriously. I LOVE a good debate and I also am very interested in the point of view from a front line TSA employee.

As tazi wrote, in the past, I could lock my luggage. If the lock was tampered with, then I could deal with the airline right there and then. Now, if anything is missing, the airline is going to point directly at the TSA.

As for your suggestion about using a cable tie, I like it, but given the vast inconsistency exhibited by the TSA, I would be reluctant to use one. Knowing my luck, my bag/case would be damaged by a screener with an attitude problem trying to teach me a lesson.

All I really want is consistency. The TSA has had 15 Months to get ramped up. The "give us time" excuse is running out of steam.

They had 15 months to get ready for bag inspections. How in gods name could they have forgotten to order the "Tamper-Evident Seals"?

I would try to work something out with the airlines if you really need to have your bag secured. We have worked out deals in the past with no problems so far. We have soldiers deploying through our airports with weapons and all types of secure commo gear that needs to be locked up. As for the tamper seals, I was in the very first class of TSA screening supervisors in Mar 02. As a matter of fact my certificates read "prototype class". Yes it has been 15 months, but some things were only accomplished yesterday. Our crew will treat your stuff with the utmost respect. Last week we searched a bag that had an urn with someones remains and we were very careful to pack things back the way they were. The tags will be out there soon.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
tsadude,

Just so we are clear:

The TSA does not want us to lock our luggage and if we do and the luggage requires a secondary screening, the lock will be cut off. BUT, if anything is stolen, we have to duke it out with the airlines.

Surely, you must personally think this is idiotic.</font>

Idiotic? Sure. But I'll bet the airlines absolutely love it! Finally, they've got somewhere else to point the finger!

I fully expect that luggage loss claims are going to quickly devolve into a "he said, she said" p***ing match between the airlines and airport TSA representatives, with the real net loser being the poor schmo who got his valuables stolen. Fun, fun! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

Being an elite and thus able to preboard with my just-barely-allowable rollaboard has never been more important.

Mook

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I would try to work something out with the airlines if you really need to have your bag secured. We have worked out deals in the past with no problems so far. We have soldiers deploying through our airports with weapons and all types of secure commo gear that needs to be locked up. As for the tamper seals, I was in the very first class of TSA screening supervisors in Mar 02. As a matter of fact my certificates read "prototype class". Yes it has been 15 months, but some things were only accomplished yesterday. Our crew will treat your stuff with the utmost respect. Last week we searched a bag that had an urn with someones remains and we were very careful to pack things back the way they were. The tags will be out there soon.</font>

15 months is more than enough time to order the seals. The fact that it was only done yesterday just shows the incompetence of those persons running this circus. I certainly don't feel comfortable trusting my safety to them.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mook:
Being an elite and thus able to preboard with my just-barely-allowable rollaboard has never been more important.
</font>

You're not kidding. That and dedicated check-in lines have all of sudden become bona fide major bonuses espeically now that it's a toss-up whether you can use the RCC to check-in.

tsadude, I'd like to direct your attention to this thread on the United board to point out why people are particularly upset about this new rule (especially where bags are screened and opened w/o passengers being able to watch).

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/017065.html

Here's the relevant passage (the last post in the thread):

"We flew UA876 from NRT-SEA yesterday connecting on to ORD. After customs TSA asked us to unlock the bags and they would lock them back after they hand checked them. They sent us on to the long security line for our connecting flight. Our bags missed the flight and were finally delivered this afternoon. One bag had the twist tie. The locks from the remaining bags were placed inside with no twist ties on the outside. The side of one bag was completely unzipped and all of our underclothes are now missing. UA says it is TSA's fault, TSA says it is UA's."

If this is what I can expect when my bags are screened, I will not consider flying a viable option. Other countries screen bags prior to check-in and in front of passengers, so that they can ensure the safety of their belongings. I shudder to think what will happen to the first poor ******* who flies to Thailand or Singapore, has his bags unlocked by you folks at the TSA, has some sort of contraband put into his bags by an airport worker, and then gets arrested in the foreign country which has a ZERO tolerance policy. Who is responsible then? I seriously doubt the TSA will bother to help that person out.

Once these wonderful tamper-evident seals arrive, will TSA put them on all bags, or just those that have been checked?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by L-1011:
Once these wonderful tamper-evident seals arrive, will TSA put them on all bags, or just those that have been checked?</font>

Actually, I do not know at this time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Actually, I do not know at this time.</font>

Because if you don't, there is no way in you-know-where that I will leave my bag unlocked going DFW-JFK-LHR-ARN just to find that something is missing when I get to my destination (or even worse, that something has been added). And since that last leg is on BA with their fantastic weight enforcement of carry-on luggage, I can't pack everything I need in my carry-on.

Lets put it this way. People were getting ripped off prior to the TSA being around. There is no doubt in my mind that people could have been in your bags even with locks because the old screening companies and airlines gave us bunches of master keys to all kinds of luggage and if you think that a soft sided bag cannot be slit open with a knife then your head is in the sand. The airlines have been fooling you guys for a long time.

tsadude: My head is firmly attached between my shoulders, and no, there is no bucket of sand on it.

It has been pointed out in many threads here the last couple of weeks, that the "normal" thief goes for the easy kill. A locked bag is many times passed up for one that is unlocked. And I will have a much easier argument with the airline if I show them a broken suitcase (slit with a knife, or whatever) than if I show up with an unlocked bag.

It is interesting, though, that this is the very first time that I hear anyone from TSA mention that you have master keys to hard-sided luggage. I though you had it, but it has never been mentioned. So all this talk about leaving luggage unlocked, that's just for soft-sided luggage with a padlock-type-of-lock, is it?

I cannot speak for every single airport in the nation reference the keys and it would be impossible to know every possible lock combination. What I am telling you is that it was a illusion that your stuff was safe in the first place. The airlines never publish, to my knowledge, what the theft rate is but all of you seem to know this or it would not be a concern.The thieves that you reference are the same people who work below the plane beyond our security and that is what you should be more concerned about.

tsadude, I appreciate that you are here and sharing your views. I can't help but feel that your views, however, are quite cavalier when it comes to our concerns about leaving our luggage unlocked, so I will try to make my point clearer. Did I really think that my luggage locks would stop a determined thief? No. I liken the situation, however, to leaving my car in a parking lot. Will locking my doors and setting my car alarm really stop a thief who is determined to break into my car? Not at all. I've seen thieves jimmy door locks and disable car alarms in a matter of seconds. Do I think that locking my doors and setting the alarm is a sensible deterrent? Of course. I would be a fool to leave my car unlocked when it is unattended in a parking lot. The locks and alarm are intended to be a deterrent, and to potentially slow a thief down. Locking my car and having a visible alarm (ie: blinking red light in the case of my car) let a thief know that he's got a couple of hurdles, and maybe he would be better off breaking into the unlocked car w/o an alarm next to me.

I think of luggage locks as the same thing. My mother was a flight attendant for years. Thanks to her, I know that there are master keys for all kinds of locks, as well as ways to pop open combo locks. I also know, thanks to her, that locked luggage is less likely to be pilfered from or rifled through. Why? Because there are lots of unlocked bags out there. Why spend the time to break into a bag when you can simply unzip one. It's a deterrent, not a true preventative.

Locks also serve to let you know if something is off with your bag. I always put the locks on my bag in a certain way. I know that if my lock is gone, or put on in a different way, my bag has been tampered with. If I'm traveling somewhere like Singapore that has harsh penalties for drug smuggling, and my bag has been tampered with, I can go through my bag prior to hitting customs and make sure I'm clean. Again, it's not a perfect system or an absolute preventative.

We live in a world where small advantages can be meaningful. I know I'm never perfectly safe in my house even with the doors locked, and that my car is never truly safe even with the doors locked and the alarm on. But does that mean I should just throw my hands up in the air and stop doing those things? Certainly not. tsadude, certainly you don't leave your house unlocked when you're gone, and I assume that you lock your car doors. Why should luggage be any different? It seems like a prudent, common sense thing to do, and I think that's why people are so upset. We're not so naive as to think that our luggage is safe with locks on, but why NOT try to take the small measures we can to protect ourselves?

[edited to fix UBB coding]

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 01-24-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
The thieves that you reference are the same people who work below the plane beyond our security and that is what you should be more concerned about.</font>

That is exactly what I am concerned about. We have spent millions of dollars to have people like you hired to search for harmless metal objects, while the serious areas of risk are left open.


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 01-24-2003).]

I'm not sure there is a real good answer to the heart of this problem.
tsadude doesn't want luggage locked because it's a hassle to check the bag if they have to cut a lock and possibly damage a bag doing it.

I agree that an ideal situation would be for the passenger to be present to observe the search process and personally unlock his/her bag.

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but I think the main problem there is a time constraint. As long as people are allowed to check in as close to take off time as they do, it would mean too many missed flights to have the passenger present for this.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JustanotherScreener:
I'm not sure there is a real good answer to the heart of this problem.
tsadude doesn't want luggage locked because it's a hassle to check the bag if they have to cut a lock and possibly damage a bag doing it.

I agree that an ideal situation would be for the passenger to be present to observe the search process and personally unlock his/her bag.

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but I think the main problem there is a time constraint. As long as people are allowed to check in as close to take off time as they do, it would mean too many missed flights to have the passenger present for this. </font>

The main problem is that faulty equipment was purchased and no thought was put into how this screening was going to be carried out. Time constraint isn't the problem. The problem is that some airports make it impossible to have land side screening so that the passengers can be present.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
The main problem is that faulty equipment was purchased and no thought was put into how this screening was going to be carried out. Time constraint isn't the problem. The problem is that some airports make it impossible to have land side screening so that the passengers can be present. </font>

Honestly, I don't believe the equipment is faulty per se. I've seen the CTX machines in operation for over a year now. I really think it's just a software fix that's needed. (Not that that's an excuse, just my thought from what I've seen.)

As for the airport layout, yes that is another big problem. Since many of the airports were built before they had ANY screening, everything since has been a retro fit. Truth is it will probably take a lot of construction at all the airports to make things like that better. At my airport they do landside for some airlines and behind the scenes for others. I'm told it was mainly a space issue.

Plastic zip ties. Aren't these those hard plastic things you need to cut off with a knife, scissors, etc. that I can't carry on the plane?

"Please do not check any luggage. Thank you."

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
As a luggage screening supervisor I will ask you all to not lock your luggage. </font>

No, and $!@% you.

Get your $#@! together, screen all luggage in line-of-sight, and start taking responsibility for your policies and the effects they can have.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Lets put it this way. People were getting ripped off prior to the TSA being around. There is no doubt in my mind that people could have been in your bags even with locks because the old screening companies and airlines gave us bunches of master keys to all kinds of luggage and if you think that a soft sided bag cannot be slit open with a knife then your head is in the sand. The airlines have been fooling you guys for a long time.</font>

That's a very offensive comment. Yes someone can always physically cut or break open my luggage, but they don't because eventually they will be caught. The idea is to be in and out of the bag with no evidence of tampering. And I use a combination lock which CANNOT be opened without breaking it. (someone tried once, leaving it obviously bent).

I will always lock my luggage, period. When you get a false positive 30% (!) of the time, go ahead and cut them off; my luggage will be safe the other 70% of the time.
I also plan on attaching a note, with my cell phone number, stating "TSA, if you have to open this bag, call me at my cell phone and I will come and open the bag for you"

My question to tsadude is:
- Will you make a genuine effort to contact and wait for the passenger to observe you searching the luggage? I am willing to come back out to the ticketing desk, you can search it, and then seal it or whatever and then take it back inside. I am willing to arrive at the airport as far in advance (2-3 hours) as I need to for this.

- When your screening machine sees something "suspicious", do you guys just open up and look at only that item, or do you feel you have carte blanche to fondle everything in my bag including my toothbrush?
(Some article actually said "put your toothbrush in a ziploc bag so it won't get dirty").

- There should always be at least one screening machine in the front for those passengers who want a pre-inspection in their presence, and a locked bag.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ender83:
No, and $!@% you.

Get your $#@! together, screen all luggage in line-of-sight, and start taking responsibility for your policies and the effects they can have.</font>
Right back at you! You do not have a choice, we will open it up anyway because inspection will be out of site before to long.

tsadude, give it up. These people would argue with a stop sign as it represents government power and interferes with their rights of free travel. They are in the vast minority and all their ranting will not change that. You will never get them to agree with you as you represent what is deplorable to them.

They decry anything that might be interpreted as a personal attack and are quick to point out the "rules" of this board. Yet when they attack someone it is always within their "right to voice their opinion."

My advice to you is to just let it go and take heart that one day you might be able to check their luggage and maybe get an alert. Now THAT is something that I would love to see. I can hear the b**ching now! LOL

Of course this is my last post on this board, I find the crowd to be too self-important for my taste.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "When all else fails, you can rely on ACES."

I don't see this as a personal freedoms issue, there are plenty of other threads discussing that -- the issue of locking/unlocking ones luggage (or personal property) has to do with the fact that while I'm rightly responsible for my luggage and its contents, I'm no longer allowed to secure it which therefore opens it and me to all kinds of issues, from something being stolen to something being illegally placed inside.

If I do secure it, I'm threatened with TSAs -"we're just going to cut the lock off" comments. I used twistie ties for one piece two weeks ago and watched TSA do the scan at Dulles, it passed without being opened. By the time the luggage arrived at my destination (connection in Denver), it was evident that the tie had been opened and redone - so someone had been in my luggage. Since I watched TSA, that is most likely to be baggage handler somewhere -- this is not news, its not a surprise, but it is a problem. The lock would've presented at least some deterrent, particularly since the connection was fairly tight. Right now, its a lose-lose situation for the passengers.

Perhaps this is the real reason the airlines were allowed to stop questioning the passengers, "Has your luggage been out of control since you packed it". The question has all kinds of new meaning with the current setup.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
You do not have a choice, we will open it up anyway because inspection will be out of site before to long.

</font>

Are you saying that all bag inspection is going to be done out of view at all airports soon?

I have three very viable choices that do not open my belongings without probable cause to do so and that have accountability for my belongings.

USPS, UPS, and FedEx

Doubtless there are others. I will not check any luggage under these ascinine conditions imposed by the TSA.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Are you saying that all bag inspection is going to be done out of view at all airports soon?

</font>
That is the plan, but maybe not for every airport. I heard that Fairbanks AK was not. You might want to move there.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
I have three very viable choices that do not open my belongings without probable cause to do so and that have accountability for my belongings.

USPS, UPS, and FedEx

Doubtless there are others. I will not check any luggage under these ascinine conditions imposed by the TSA.

</font>
You are a piece of work Spiff. Hey,maybe you can charter your own flight also. That would be great for us.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
That is the plan, but maybe not for every airport. I heard that Fairbanks AK was not. You might want to move there.

</font>


Is this the way you respond to serious questions from people passing through security at your airport?

Time to add another user to that ignore list.

He/She is just showing us the true attitude at the Thousands Standing Around power tripping head case club.

Would that I could afford to, though now your organization seems to be wanting to subject charter flights to the same nonsense.

Seriously, what kind of response do you expect when your organization 1)Opens bags on a whim (pre-screening machine has a 30% failure rate) 2)Breaks locks on locked bags and opens them without the owner present and 3)Refuses to accept any liability for damage or theft resulting from 2) above?

Did you think that the two word response was going to be "happy birthday"? If so, guess again...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:

You are a piece of work Spiff. Hey,maybe you can charter your own flight also. That would be great for us.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

.

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 01-28-2003).]

Am I the only one who doubts whether tsadude really works for the TSA? His flippant remarks and hostile, arrogant tone are far from professional. I took the time to write a thoughtful, measured response to his posts. Did I get a response? No. (Actually, that does sound like the TSA...) Instead, he has chosen to make sarcastic posts that seem designed to anger us and bait us. tsadude's remarks are only making us think worse of the TSA and making us more and more suspicious of TSA policy. If this is truly how the TSA views us (with absolutely no respect), then I really don't want to support it or its policies.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Buster:
Am I the only one who doubts whether tsadude really works for the TSA? His flippant remarks and hostile, arrogant tone are far from professional. I took the time to write a thoughtful, measured response to his posts. Did I get a response? No. (Actually, that does sound like the TSA...) Instead, he has chosen to make sarcastic posts that seem designed to anger us and bait us. tsadude's remarks are only making us think worse of the TSA and making us more and more suspicious of TSA policy. If this is truly how the TSA views us (with absolutely no respect), then I really don't want to support it or its policies.</font>

You would never know it if you met me at the airport. Here at this board, I am free to view my personal feeling as a regular person off of the clock. The sad thing is that like I stated before, the ticket agents and skycaps truly dislike those of you who show how much of an a$$ some of you can be. You have no respect for others and demand to be treated like a god. Just yesterday I tried to do something nice. Someone left a locked golf container and I paged the person twice and the airlines tried twice also. After about an hour I started to break off the lock to check this back which had alarmed in the machine. The guy shows up and cannot understand that he was not supposed to not lock up his bags. I asked where he got his ticket and showed him the BIG sign that explained this. He still was clueless and wanted me to pay for a new bag. Isent him back to the ticket counter to talk with the manager who told him the same thing I did, do not lock your bags. I did not have to page this person at all. All of the screeners will probably not page anyone now that they witnessed this.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021220luggagenat3p3.asp

The government cannot indefinitely escape liability for luggage damaged by security, lawyers said. Airlines are now liable for up to $2,500 in damage per passenger on domestic flights. The regulations governing airlines may become the basis for rules that apply to the security administration.

"They are going to have to develop a system for reimbursing passengers for lost or stolen bags," said Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer who follows security issues for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Nothing has ever occurred on this scale before, where you have the government searching a billion bags. So, law is going to be made here."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
The sad thing is that like I stated before, the ticket agents and skycaps truly dislike those of you who show how much of an a$$ some of you can be. You have no respect for others and demand to be treated like a god. </font>

Which ones of 'us' are you talking about and how can you be so certain it was someone from this forum??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Buster:
Am I the only one who doubts whether tsadude really works for the TSA? His flippant remarks and hostile, arrogant tone are far from professional. I took the time to write a thoughtful, measured response to his posts. Did I get a response? No. (Actually, that does sound like the TSA...) Instead, he has chosen to make sarcastic posts that seem designed to anger us and bait us. tsadude's remarks are only making us think worse of the TSA and making us more and more suspicious of TSA policy. If this is truly how the TSA views us (with absolutely no respect), then I really don't want to support it or its policies.</font>

I posted my doubts not long after tsadude registered.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:

You would never know it if you met me at the airport. Here at this board, I am free to view my personal feeling as a regular person off of the clock. The sad thing is that like I stated before, the ticket agents and skycaps truly dislike those of you who show how much of an a$$ some of you can be. You have no respect for others and demand to be treated like a god.[/B]</font>

How on earth do you know what the airlines' agents and the skycaps think of ME??

Are you really all-knowing??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">You have no respect for others and demand to be treated like a god. </font>

I've never demanded to be treated like a god, and I think I've shown nothing but respect for people I've encountered at the airport. If trying to protect my possessions from thieves and worse is tantamount to demanding to be treated like a god and showing no respect for others, then this is a very sad place and time to be living in indeed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
How on earth do you know what the airlines' agents and the skycaps think of ME??

Are you really all-knowing??</font>
I am not refering to anyone here specifically unless the shoe fits. I will answer any questions that you have in an honest open manner, but if you wish to blast me about policy that I have no control over, expect an ugly answer. Courtesy goes both ways. I will always help someone out but don't yank my chain and expect nothing in return.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I am not refering to anyone here specifically unless the shoe fits. I will answer any questions that you have in an honest open manner, but if you wish to blast me about policy that I have no control over, expect an ugly answer. Courtesy goes both ways. I will always help someone out but don't yank my chain and expect nothing in return.

</font>

I don't think anyone here is blasting you personally about the policy, but only the policy itself. In response, we've received everything but 'open honest answers'. Just a lot of sarcastic BS.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
I don't think anyone here is blasting you personally about the policy, but only the policy itself. In response, we've received everything but 'open honest answers'. Just a lot of sarcastic BS.</font>

I will try to be nicer. I come from a blue collar family and it shows.

I am not a lawyer but I believe the federal government is exempt from many liability lawsuits, at least in a financial sense. I'm not sure if the federal government would be exempt in this case.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I will try to be nicer. I come from a blue collar family and it shows.

</font>

tsadude...I can't even believe you said that. Blue collar family=rude, sarcastic responses?

Wow...time to cut those apron strings...I'm not sure you can hold an entire population of hard-working citizens responsible for your urges and utterances.


[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-30-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mwp2paris:
tsadude...I can't even believe you said that. Blue collar family=rude, sarcastic responses?

Wow...time to cut those apron strings...I'm not sure you can hold an entire population of hard-working citizens responsible for your urges and utterances.


[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-30-2003).]</font>

I hate to burst your bubble. But there are millions like me who bust there ... and have an attitude and hard opinions unlike yours.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
How on earth do you know what the airlines' agents and the skycaps think of ME??

Are you really all-knowing??</font>

He must be...or at least thinks he is...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I hate to burst your bubble. But there are millions like me who bust there ... and have and attitude and hard opinions unlike yours.</font>

A few thoughts:

1. I am not a bubble-boy, so don't really need you to burst anything.

2. You have no idea if my opinions are hard, soft or overeasy.

3. I don't even know what your response means, really, or what it has to do with anything.

4. It is "their asses" not "there ...."

Now, what was this thread about? Something about locks? Perhaps it is time to apply one to this thread...though tsadude would probably just break it off.




[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-30-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mwp2paris:
A few thoughts:

1. I am not a bubble-boy, so don't really need you to burst anything.

2. You have no idea if my opinions are hard, soft or overeasy.

3. I don't even know what your response means, really, or what it has to do with anything.

4. It is "their asses" not "there ...."

Now, what was this thread about? Something about locks? Perhaps it is time to apply one to this thread...though tsadude would probably just break it off.


[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-30-2003).]</font>

I'll be laughing at your response as I pop the locks off of your luggage and then it may make your flight if it is found at all.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I'll be laughing at your response as I pop the locks off of your luggage and then it may make your flight if it is found at all.

</font>

"Won't professionalize 'til you federalize." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

Last week I flew from Juneau Alaska to Anchorage. I checked my Garment bag and headed to the lounge. I was paged by a CSR from AS. I figured I was being upgraded to first class but found I was really the first a$$. TSA folks wanted to talk to me about a positive for Nitroglycerin. Of course with 30%+ false positives they checked it a 2nd and 3rd/final time with a negative for mention explosive. They already had my bag open and items laid out as they swabbed their tampon detection pads. Why did they bother paging me when they already had my belongings laid out and 2 negatives for nitro? Not to mention that they can't even follow their own guidelines consistently. I witnessed them in my bag but never found the BS slip they're suppose to insert after fondling. We should all be extremely concerned about the false negatives. I will not stand by any longer either and let the TSA do whatever they want without making my self heard. I will also lock my bags with a combo lock. This is mostly to prevent someone from placing something in my bag, not removing something from it. Screw the TSA and their unaccountability. We will see this in court soon.
I still don't understand why, if they really suspected a bomb, did they open the bag in SJC then arrest the couple from Maine(?) for faking a bomb?!? Were they trying to blow up the entire airport? They knew it wasn't a bomb and got thier ego's bruised by the "fascist" letter. lain and simple.

Is TSADude really with the TSA? Probably not. Just some prepubescent teenager enjoying "yanking your chain" in this forum. I say TSADude thanks for nothing and go back to AOL Chat with the rest of children the .............

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I'll be laughing at your response as I pop the locks off of your luggage and then it may make your flight if it is found at all.

</font>

TSA Dude, I posted this once before and I'd like to say it again. Maybe if you read it again (if you read it at all) some of it will sink in. You are a lousy representative of your people.
-----
Tsadude, I'm not intending to personally attack you and I've only been here a short while, but may I just suggest that it might serve you better to be less bellicose and more neutral. I understand that some of the comments made here are in poor taste and grossly unfair. Many of the posters seem to be so negative on TSA it is clear that nothing anyone says will change their opinion. In fact, I've already seen that many of them are more interested in being recacitrant than open minded. People like that may not be worth getting upset over.

If you had a different handle or did not identify yourself as a TSA employee, it would be a little different. You do have the freedom to speak your mind, as we all do but when you represent yourself as from a certain group, though we all clearly know you do not officialy represent the TSA, we do make assumptions and conclusions about TSA people and their attitudes through your posts.

I'm suggesting simply that you consider carefully what you say and how you say it so as to put your best foot forward. I have many friends at the TSA and want to see them fairly reflected on. As a supervisor, you should be even more attentive to how you come across. Even if some fool annoys you, it might be better to be tolerant and either say nothing or graciously pass on further comment.

I welcome your views, it is important to have a good balance of viewpoints here. I'm just suggesting that you be more aware of how some of your responses look. Maybe just factual and non judgemental answers would help. Or as I said, no answer may be better.

Ok, I know, I am judgemental and I am sometimes non factual, and gee, I even get belligerant at times, as do many of the individuals here and on other forums. But..consider this. When I do so, I'm only representing myself and any bad opinions people may gain from my own stupidity reflects only on me. When someone identifies themselves as part of a group and their handle reflects that, fair or not, people tend to see that person as representative of the rest of the group. Your co-workers deserve the best possible, professional representation.

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
Is TSADude really with the TSA? Probably not. Just some prepubescent teenager enjoying "yanking your chain" in this forum. I say TSADude thanks for nothing and go back to AOL Chat with the rest of children the .............</font>

I believe he is based on the content of past posts. He is a baggage screening supervisor at Tampa airport. His wife also works for the TSA.


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 01-30-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Buster:
Instead, he has chosen to make sarcastic posts that seem designed to anger us and bait us. tsadude's remarks are only making us think worse of the TSA and making us more and more suspicious of TSA policy.</font>

Hmmm. Interesting point. Hypothetically, if we were to wonder who might try to foster hostility towards the TSA and post 9/11 security, whom might that be?

Seriously, what kind of response do you expect when your organization 1)Opens bags on a whim (pre-screening machine has a 30% failure rate) 2)Breaks locks on locked bags and opens them without the owner present and 3)Refuses to accept any liability for damage or theft resulting from 2) above?

1. It is not on a whim. It is policy that we must follow whether I agree with it or not.
2. If we had to call every passenger down for every bag we had to open, what kind of delays do you think we would have then?
3. Unfortunatly once it leaves TSA's hands it passes through many others before you receive it. I can only tell you this. There are many eyes on us as we search though bags. I doubt that anyone would risk taking something.

PS I will introduce myself soon. I am short on time.

THIS IS JUST MORE PASSING THE BUCK.

These idiots tell us not to lock our bags, and if we do, they may be required to break the lock. BUT, they do not want to be responsible for OUR belongings if they are stolen.

THIS IS PURE NONSENSE. It did not take long for the "Government Attitude" to take root at the Thousands Standing Around.

I hope that each and every person who has been inconvenienced and ripped off by the TSA remembers on election day that it was Tom Daschle who forced this wasteful agency upon our country.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dr. TSA:
[B]2. If we had to call every passenger down for every bag we had to open, what kind of delays do you think we would have then?
[B]</font>

IIRC, this is exactly what they do at LHR, the busiest airport in Europe and perhaps the busiest truly "international" airport in the world.

Since the TSA does have the proverbial cast of "Thousands," surely it too can duplicate this policy?

As an aside: I'm simply going to check my Glock 19 anytime I need to check luggage. That should, in theory, keep the TSA gurus from cracking open my luggage outside of my physical presence.

------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

[This message has been edited by ClueByFour (edited 01-30-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I'll be laughing at your response as I pop the locks off of your luggage and then it may make your flight if it is found at all.

</font>

I know this will be a bummer for you, but you will have to fulfill your undie-sniff'n fetish elsewhere (don't they have a website for that...www.TSAScreener.com?). This old FFer has a brain, uses it when he packs to have as little to do with you and your comrades as possible, and NEVER checks luggage.

I'll prance through your scrutiny point so fast you won't even catch a wiff of my hair gel.

yah'll cum bak naw, ya hir...and don't be a lok'n yur bags cuz if ya do, we'll sik tsadude on em and he'll jus chew them loks right off. Hell, we toss him a FA or granny in a wheely-chair every once in a while just fer laffs.



[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-31-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mwp2paris:
I know this will be a bummer for you, but you will have to fulfill your undie-sniff'n fetish elsewhere (don't they have a website for that...www.TSAScreener.com?). This old FFer has a brain, uses it when he packs to have as little to do with you and your comrades as possible, and NEVER checks luggage.

I'll prance through your scrutiny point so fast you won't even catch a wiff of my hair gel.

yah'll cum bak naw, ya hir...and don't be a lok'n yur bags cuz if ya do, we'll sik tsadude on em and he'll jus chew them loks right off. Hell, we toss him a FA or granny in a wheely-chair every once in a while just fer laffs.

[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 01-31-2003).]</font>
Dang,I am glad to see that someone has a sense of humor here. We'll catch you someday and confiscate your gel. I will seek counseling on the fetish thing, I did not realize it was that obvious.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
THIS IS JUST MORE PASSING THE BUCK.

These idiots tell us not to lock our bags, and if we do, they may be required to break the lock. BUT, they do not want to be responsible for OUR belongings if they are stolen.

THIS IS PURE NONSENSE. It did not take long for the "Government Attitude" to take root at the Thousands Standing Around.

I hope that each and every person who has been inconvenienced and ripped off by the TSA remembers on election day that it was Tom Daschle who forced this wasteful agency upon our country.</font>
Actually TSA stands for Tough .... A$$hole.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Would that I could afford to, though now your organization seems to be wanting to subject charter flights to the same nonsense.

Seriously, what kind of response do you expect when your organization 1)Opens bags on a whim (pre-screening machine has a 30% failure rate) 2)Breaks locks on locked bags and opens them without the owner present and 3)Refuses to accept any liability for damage or theft resulting from 2) above?

Did you think that the two word response was going to be "happy birthday"? If so, guess again...



</font>

I find it interesting that the makers of these machines all of a sudden realize that there is a 30% failure rate. I think that they knew it all along and will sell the government the software upgrade for a fee.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:

Actually TSA stands for Tough .... A$$hole.
</font>

I long for the day when enhancements to the UBB format allow for the "Ignore Poster" button to become reality.

Mook

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mook:
I long for the day when enhancements to the UBB format allow for the "Ignore Poster" button to become reality.

Mook</font>

I was just thinking the same thing

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Actually TSA stands for Tough .... A$$hole.</font>
Hey, I don't know if tsadude is with the TSA or not but I do find his definition humorous. Guess the TSA folks were sick of hearing the Thousands Standing Around thing a hundred times a day and decided to come up with their own version.

Maybe if they were actually doing something instead of standing around with their thumbs up their collective butts, they would not have to hear us TAXPAYERS make those comments.

Now, to get back on topic. . .

First, I want to say that so far my encounters with the TSA have been pleasant and professional. One TSAer even offered me a Tootsie Roll Pop after she finished frisking me!

I am, however, VERY disturbed by the "don't lock your luggage" rule. I do not want to be responsible for what someone has put INTO my luggage, as well as what they may take out. I'm not too concerned about the TSA taking something, but a lot of people have access to that bag after it leaves tSA hands.

So far DEN is the only place where I have not been allowed to be present when my luggage was screened. I asked to be paged if it was necessary to open the bag, and I was told that was "impossible".

I locked my bag anyway, and the check-in agent handed me a slip of paper from the TSA stating that locked bags will be "opened if necessary", and the "process could result in delay or damage." She also said the airline would not be responsible for damage if I "insisted" on locking my bag. Fortunately, my bag was not "selected" for further inspection.

Europe has had checked-bag screening for years, and I have been called to the back several times to be present when the bag needed to be opened. This has always happened while I was still in the check-in area, and did not result in any significant delays. I was told at LGW that they *always* want the passenger present when going through their belongings. It is a very simple and efficient process.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Nightflyer:

...
I am, however, VERY disturbed by the "don't lock your luggage" rule. I do not want to be responsible for what someone has put INTO my luggage, as well as what they may take out. I'm not too concerned about the TSA taking something, but a lot of people have access to that bag after it leaves tSA hands.
</font>

Fantastic defense for drug smugglers! That kilo of heroin? It must have been put in by that guy with the cap!

Aren't you glad they stopped asking those stupid questions about who packed your luggage and has it been under your control? Can you imagine 100,000 passengers a day now saying, "Hmmm? I guess I did leave it on a conveyor belt with strangers for about the last 4 hours before this connecting flight."

[This message has been edited by RS (edited 02-02-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
Maybe if they were actually doing something instead of standing around with their thumbs up their collective butts, they would not have to hear us TAXPAYERS make those comments.</font>

Screeners are taxpayers also, so what's your point? What do you think they should do?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by RS:
Fantastic defense for drug smugglers! That kilo of heroin? It must have been put in by that guy with the cap!

Aren't you glad they stopped asking those stupid questions about who packed your luggage and has it been under your control? Can you imagine 100,000 passengers a day now saying, "Hmmm? I guess I did leave it on a conveyor belt with strangers for about the last 4 hours before this connecting flight."

[This message has been edited by RS (edited 02-02-2003).]</font>

If you are trying to move that much dope, they are watching you anyway.

IIRC, this is exactly what they do at LHR, the busiest airport in Europe and perhaps the busiest truly "international" airport in the world.

Since the TSA does have the proverbial cast of "Thousands," surely it too can duplicate this policy?

As an aside: I'm simply going to check my Glock 19 anytime I need to check luggage. That should, in theory, keep the TSA gurus from cracking open my luggage outside of my physical presence.

Actually It will still be opened. Firearms must be unloaded and declared to go through with checked baggage. They must also be in their own locked case. If it has been declared then TSA will see that and if the alarm was on the firearm then the bag will be sent on its way. The locked firearm case will not be opened by us. If it is not declared then Law Enforcement will be called and they will take it from there.


Here is another good on: Taking Scissors Away

Ok. Intro. I am your basic screener employed with TSA. I hold a PhD and have many computer certifications. I chose to be a part of TSA because 9/11 impacted me greatly and I wanted to do something to help. I cannot say that I agree with all of TSA's policies but as an employee I must follow them. I am very familiar with the airlines. (pilots license, A & P ticket) I will be very honest in answering questions posted to me but I will NOT divulge any sensitive information.I also have a background in military aviation.

Please do not disect my spelling or grammer as my degree is not in English and there is no spellchecker on this board. 8oP

My goal on this board is to learn passenger complaints and maybe solutions to problems.

Now for the disclaimer.
Everything I post here is my personal opinion and is in no way the opinion of TSA. I speak for myself only.

I will also try to get solutions implemented if I think they are well thought out and plausible. Of course I have no control over the solutions once I have submitted them.

Thanks

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dr. TSA:
IIRC, this is exactly what they do at LHR, the busiest airport in Europe and perhaps the busiest truly "international" airport in the world.

Since the TSA does have the proverbial cast of "Thousands," surely it too can duplicate this policy?

As an aside: I'm simply going to check my Glock 19 anytime I need to check luggage. That should, in theory, keep the TSA gurus from cracking open my luggage outside of my physical presence.

Actually It will still be opened. Firearms must be unloaded and declared to go through with checked baggage. They must also be in their own locked case. If it has been declared then TSA will see that and if the alarm was on the firearm then the bag will be sent on its way. The locked firearm case will not be opened by us. If it is not declared then Law Enforcement will be called and they will take it from there.


Here is another good on: Taking Scissors Away

Ok. Intro. I am your basic screener employed with TSA. I hold a PhD and have many computer certifications. I chose to be a part of TSA because 9/11 impacted me greatly and I wanted to do something to help. I cannot say that I agree with all of TSA's policies but as an employee I must follow them. I am very familiar with the airlines. (pilots license, A & P ticket) I will be very honest in answering questions posted to me but I will NOT divulge any sensitive information.I also have a background in military aviation.

Please do not disect my spelling or grammer as my degree is not in English and there is no spellchecker on this board. 8oP

My goal on this board is to learn passenger complaints and maybe solutions to problems.

Now for the disclaimer.
Everything I post here is my personal opinion and is in no way the opinion of TSA. I speak for myself only.</font>

What type of military aviation background. I was a mastercrewchief in the Army. I also have an A&P.

Check my bags? Not on your life.

I laugh at the AAgent every time I reply to: "Number of bags to check today, Spiff?" "Zero. I'll never check another bag again as long as the presently disgusting TSA checked bag screening policy is in place." Nearly every AAgent has sympathised with me as to how stupid and unaccountable the current process is.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I'll be laughing at your response as I pop the locks off of your luggage and then it may make your flight if it is found at all.

</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Navy Mechanic/Search and Rescue

I posted this in response to another thread on locking luggage but it bears repeating here:

Do yourself a favor and ship your gear. Don't let the TSA get near it. A friend checked a brand new monitor through and they opened it to search it, including removing it from the plastic bag. When it arrived it was missing the plastic bag and the power cord, had been placed in the box backwards so that it did not align with the styrofoam packing at the bottom, and they just decided to leave the top packing material out of the box.

$@%#&#ing IDIOTS!

Edited for better expletive censoring



[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-04-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I find it interesting that the makers of these machines all of a sudden realize that there is a 30% failure rate. I think that they knew it all along and will sell the government the software upgrade for a fee. </font>


They didn't just realize. It has been known along and the TSA bought them anyway (with much encouraging from Daschle).


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-03-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:

They didn't just realize. It has been known along and the TSA bought them anyway (with much encouraging from Daschle).


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-03-2003).]</font>

What other machines had a better rate?

Let me get this straight:

Since the only machines on the market have a 30% false positive rate, we should buy them? This is pure and utter nonsense and the usual governemnt waste.

The 30% false positive machines were evaluated by the airline industry after Pan Am - Lockerbie. They were rejected because they did NOT work. So, along comes Tom ("You can't professionalize until you federalize") Daschle and his wife Linda to save the day for the rejected manufacturer.

Tom:

Where is this professionalism you promised us?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
Let me get this straight:

Since the only machines on the market have a 30% false positive rate, we should buy them? This is pure and utter nonsense and the usual governemnt waste.
</font>

Actually, there are alternatives. Denver was supposed to be testing a smaller, faster, less expensive, more efficient machine that could tell the difference between chocolate and explosives. The problem? It's made in Germany.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Louie_LI:
Actually, there are alternatives. Denver was supposed to be testing a smaller, faster, less expensive, more efficient machine that could tell the difference between chocolate and explosives. The problem? It's made in Germany.</font>

The problem is that Linda Daschle isn't a lobbyist for that company.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dr. TSA:
I will also try to get solutions implemented if I think they are well thought out and plausible. Of course I have no control over the solutions once I have submitted them.
Thanks</font>
Dr. TSA...here's one for you. When is TSA going to stop the requiring laptops be removed from their cases?? And why is it just laptops that have to be removed?? If someone has a radio, camera,Gameboy, GPS receiver or other electronics laden item in their carry on, these don't have to be removed. What is so unique about laptops??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:

Dr. TSA...here's one for you. When is TSA going to stop the requiring laptops be removed from their cases?? And why is it just laptops that have to be removed?? If someone has a radio, camera,Gameboy, GPS receiver or other electronics laden item in their carry on, these don't have to be removed. What is so unique about laptops??

</font>

Hi Cholula,

The best answer I can give you is that laptops are rather dense on the x-ray. If they ever DO stop requiring they be removed, there'd be about a 98% chance your bag would get flagged for a secondary screening to clear up areas that would be near impossible to clear by X-Ray.

Also, although only laptops are asked about, quite often this problem arises with DVD players, X Box and Game Cube game consoles and other electronics.

(Spelling)

[This message has been edited by JustanotherScreener (edited 02-06-2003).]

Actually, most of the time it's your battery(ies) that is/are too dense for x-rays to penetrate. They are paranoid that you might hide something beneath your battery pack(s). The rest of the electronics, other than the transformers, are likely fairly visible on the x-ray.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Actually, most of the time it's your battery(ies) that is/are too dense for x-rays to penetrate. They are paranoid that you might hide something beneath your battery pack(s). The rest of the electronics, other than the transformers, are likely fairly visible on the x-ray.

</font>

Just curious Spiff, where did you get your info ?

He has no info, he does not know the capabilities of the x-ray machine.

I've watched the x-ray's screen and talked to the screeners.

Also, I happen to know a little bit about materials science...

http://faculty.washington.edu/pmay/pols398/airportsecurityhowworks.pdf

And, here's a nice pic of a laptop x-ray:

http://ether.asu.edu/video/TiGutz/TiGutz.jpg

Notice the translucent/opaque cylinders in the lower-left hand corner? That's the battery pack. You can see the circuit board beneath some parts of the batteries, but not all that well. Packing lots of stuff in a bag with a computer on top of the other stuff could make it difficult to see the other stuff through the computer.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Still, he does not know the capabilities of the x-ray. Your reason is all wrong.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Still, he does not know the capabilities of the x-ray. Your reason is all wrong.</font>

Didn't you say you were leaving awhile back gliner?



[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-08-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Didn't you say you were leaving awhile backgliner?

</font>

How does this statement relate to the topic at hand? Strikes me as intimidation.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
How does this statement relate to the topic at hand? Strikes me as intimidation. </font>

Not nearly as intimidating as this one was, Brian:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">ACES II

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jan 2003
posted 01-24-2003 07:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish I could be a fly on the wall whenever tazi goes through security. I bet it is quite a sight indeed. I wonder what his blood pressure hits. If and when his time does come, I bet it will be while he is being wanded. So many people take themselves so seriously, it is always good to find a place where that is not the case...LOL </font>

Has anyone contemplated your death in writing recently? It's a bit unsettling to say the least so yes, I was hoping he wouldn't be back.



[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-08-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Has anyone contemplated your death in writing recently? It's a bit unsettling to say the least so yes, I was hoping he wouldn't be back.

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-08-2003).]</font>

I have complained to moderators about other threads that were out of control, and they were acted on. If you see this as out of bounds, and without provocation, I suggest the same.

The original topic here was locking luggage, if there is no further conversation on that topic, perhaps this thread too has outlived it's usefulness.

Or maybe it's difficult to see the computer through the other stuff?

Besides, this is a black and white image. Uh, welcome to the 21st century.

Anyway, maybe you should read the article on "how things work" again, and you may get your answer about laptops. You might be suprised to find that even though batteries may be a remote link, their composition has nothing to do with why you are asked to remove your laptop. As you can see, a laptop battery is composed of many small batteries. No different that the ones found in hundreds of other electronics.

Hmm....did you figure it out yet.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
I've watched the x-ray's screen and talked to the screeners.

Also, I happen to know a little bit about materials science...

http://faculty.washington.edu/pmay/pols398/airportsecurityhowworks.pdf

And, here's a nice pic of a laptop x-ray:

http://ether.asu.edu/video/TiGutz/TiGutz.jpg

Notice the translucent/opaque cylinders in the lower-left hand corner? That's the battery pack. You can see the circuit board beneath some parts of the batteries, but not all that well. Packing lots of stuff in a bag with a computer on top of the other stuff could make it difficult to see the other stuff through the computer.

</font>

There is a very good reason why we are required to remove our laptops. One day you might meet a screener who will tell you what it is, but I doubt it as I believe that it falls under SSI.

Tazi, get over yourself.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "When wanding gives you fits, ACES II is a hit."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
There is a very good reason why we are required to remove our laptops. One day you might meet a screener who will tell you what it is, but I doubt it as I believe that it falls under SSI.

</font>

I am so tired of hearing the SSI excuse, it is old, tired and pure BS.

Are you telling me that LHR security isn't effective, since I don't have to remove my laptop there? Or that their scanning machines are so much better that they don't require it?

If there is a real reason, I am open to listening to and evaluating it. Otherwise, I will continue to consider it an unnecessary pain the @$$.

RE: Laptops out of bags

I suspect the SSI 'reason' is the same as for cell phones:

They open them up to see if they 'power up' and are a real functioning computer and not a dummy with parts inside masquerading as legit but really bomb parts.
This is time consuming to do if you must remove them from their bag first.

Mind, any good tech could manage a laptop that can do both, thus the swab check on lots of laptops and their bags....

S

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-09-2003).]

Research Paper: "Intricate Screening Technologies for Airport Security" (http://www.google.cl/search?q=cache:u__i5-z7oJEC:filebox.vt.edu/arch/psk2/papa6224-2002/teamair/research.doc+%22remove+your+laptop%22+%22why%22&hl=es&ie=UTF-8)

"The impact of intricate screening on civil rights and liberties must be considered in the context of airport security. Successful deterrence of terrorism is should be based on an informed public which feels part of the security process and believes in its fairness. If the public is alienated because their civil rights are not respected, then they will be less inclined to be vigilant for the security community."

I, for one, am feeling pretty god@#$% alienated.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

The whole SSI excuse really falls apart when you consider that 66,000 people have access to this information. Do you really think the governement would share 'sensitive' information with that many people?

Just more smoke and mirrors.

I would be willing to bet that every one of those that do know were required to sign a non-disclosure statement that could land them in some serious trouble if they divulged SSI. I know I did when I worked with "special" weapons in the USAF. Hence their reluctence to tell you or anyone why you are wrong. Suffice it to say that you are.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You don't need to know how it works, but when you need it it will."

The appearance of a laptop on an x-ray scanner is in no way "sensitive." Laptops and x-ray scanners are common enough (outside of airports!) that any fool can find out for himself what laptops look like on x-ray screens.

I am confident that ordinary TSA employees working airport checkpoints see little or no information that is truly sensitive. Perhaps these employees are led to believe that they are in on some secret, because it helps them to feel that their job is important. That's a worthy objective, but let's not allow ourselves to be fooled.

Real secrets are, by definition, held by a small group of people -- the smaller, the better. Any time you tell 66,000 people ANYTHING, it's no longer secret. That should be obvious enough.

Bruce

For those who complain about "sharp, pointy, objects" being looked at closely...

"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept. 11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, including two who were singled out because of irregularities in their identification documents, U.S. officials said this week. Six were chosen for extra scrutiny by a computerized screening system, prompting a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, authorities said. The ninth was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification." -- Washington Post, 3/2/02

Thats all the nine guys above had. Say it can't happen again? Maybe not, but I for one don't want to be on a flight where it might be attempted. At least not without my ejection seat.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You can't always trust the passenger beside you, but ACES II will never let you go down in flames."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
For those who complain about "sharp, pointy, objects" being looked at closely...

"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept. 11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, including two who were singled out because of irregularities in their identification documents, U.S. officials said this week. Six were chosen for extra scrutiny by a computerized screening system, prompting a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, authorities said. The ninth was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification." -- Washington Post, 3/2/02

Thats all the nine guys above had. Say it can't happen again? Maybe not, but I for one don't want to be on a flight where it might be attempted. At least not without my ejection seat.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You can't always trust the passenger beside you, but ACES II will never let you go down in flames."</font>

Didn't you say you were leaving for good??

Anyway, how do you KNOW what the September 11 Muslims Who Hated the US had in their possession?

They may have had boxcutters and plastic knives, but none have been found.

You and your 65,000 brethren can search for and take away all the sharp and pointy objects you want, but you aren't taking all of them away. I have been allowed a sharp glass mirror and bottles of alcohol on every flight since September 11. From my limited knowledge, they could be deadly.

Same for the glassware AA gives me on every flight.

Same for countless other objects that I carry on or could fashion onboard the airplane.

Keep on telling yourself that you're doing the Lord's Work by searching for the sharp and pointy objects. Not everyone buys it, however.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
For those who complain about "sharp, pointy, objects" being looked at closely...

"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept. 11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, including two who were singled out because of irregularities in their identification documents, U.S. officials said this week. Six were chosen for extra scrutiny by a computerized screening system, prompting a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, authorities said. The ninth was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification." -- Washington Post, 3/2/02

Thats all the nine guys above had. Say it can't happen again? Maybe not, but I for one don't want to be on a flight where it might be attempted. At least not without my ejection seat.</font>

What is all they had? I really don't see what point you are trying to make. Boxcutters were allowed at that time so all that scrutiny would not have changed anything. It isn't like they slipped by the screening.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Hence their reluctence to tell you or anyone why you are wrong. Suffice it to say that you are. </font>

I love this line of thinking. I have to try this at my next board meeting.

Me: I'm sorry sir you are wrong.
Board: Please explain.
Me: orry I can't, its a secret, but just take my word for it, you are worng.

It must be nice to be right all the time and never have to prove it.

rawbert

Under the new regulations the TSA can order the FAA to suspend or revoke a pilot's license if he or she is deemed to be a threat to national security. The pilot can appeal to the TSA, but the TSA can keep secret the evidence for security reasons. Makes it very difficult for the pilot to mount a proper defense.

This is the sort of "thinking" we have to deal with.

Sure, whats wrong with that thinking? We don't arrest the innocent, that would be a waste of our valuable time!

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You might think of yourself as important, but ACES II will work everytime for everyone."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Sure, whats wrong with that thinking? We don't arrest the innocent, that would be a waste of our valuable time!
</font>

I wasn't aware you security *******s were thinking. Thanks for clarifying this.

The point is that now somebody's livelihood can be taken away, simply because the government decides it wants to. There is basically no legal recourse. (Very difficult to defend yourself if you don't know the evidence) For somebody who is a pilot for a living, this can be a very destructive policy. To use an analogy that more people can relate to, suppose the government were able to take away your drivers license for that blanket reason known as "national security." How would THAT change your life, ACES II?

Where will the madness end? Already so-called "secret evidence" is being used in court proceedings. I dare you to try to tell me that the defense does not need to see the evidence to make a proper defense. Pointy objects brigade continues to crack down on nail clippers, while still letting lighers through. (Am I the only person who sees an issue here?) The Constitution, the document that makes this country great, is being spit on by you, ACES II, all in the name of security. I never asked for this so-called "security." I have never felt threatened by terrorists (What is the definition of that word by the way? That seems to change basically on a weekly basis.) I am not afraid of terrorism, and I will not have my life dictated by that. All I see this enhanced security doing is pissing on the very freedoms that this country has elevated as a pillar of democracy for the past 200 years. (We don't really need the Constitution. It always made life so inconvenient for prosecutors and the government. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif )

For upholding the founding principles of this country, I am much more of a patriot than you could ever hope to be ACES II. So, frankly, you can take your enhanced security and shove it up your ....

Ben Franklin was right. You're just too blind to see it.

FWAAA wrote....Keep on telling yourself that you're doing the Lord's Work by searching for the sharp and pointy objects. Not everyone buys it, however.

For what it is worth, I build ejection seats used on F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, B-2, F-117, F-22 and others. Hence the moniker. You might fly a lot, but you have never flown until you have done so in an ejection seat...LOL

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "There is flying, then there is flying the ACES II way."

"THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!" - Chicken Little

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "Want to hit the sky? ACES II can get you there FAST."

You guys really crack me up with your constitution waving. I defended the constitution for 20+ years, big deal. You tear at it and wrap yourself in it all the while whining about how YOUR rights are being taken away from you. What "rights" have you personally lost? Now take a deep breath, get a paper bag to breath into if you need it. Now think REALLY hard, and ask yourself what rights you have really lost? What has the big bad government taken away from you? The right to travel? No, you fly all the time. The right to take your pocket knife or even your boxcutter with you? No, you can put it in your checked bag. All the big bad government has done is put extra security steps in place to prevent another aircraft from being used as a weapon of mass destruction. If you people spent as much time thinking about the security that is in place and dressing/packing accordingly, then I suspect that like me, you MIGHT get wanded once every 3 weeks or so if then. I might not fly as often as most of you, but I do my share travelling to various air force bases as a consultant. Do I think that the security is a hassle? Sometimes, but so what, looking at the larger picture, it is no big deal. Lighten up people and enjoy life. The nattering nabobs of negativity will not get things changed, only a change in the threat will do that.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "Don't just sit there! EJECT!"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
For what it is worth, I build ejection seats used on F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, B-2, F-117, F-22 and others. Hence the moniker. You might fly a lot, but you have never flown until you have done so in an ejection seat...LOL</font>

So being a screener is your part time job? Is the ejection seat business not doing so well then?

I tell you what, the day I have to depend on you to save my arse, I'll gladly kiss it good bye http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

No tazi, I am not a screener. Lockheed is a very good company to work for and I do not need a part-time job thank you. I do have some friends who are screeners though. They sure do have some funny stories about passengers. As for your arse, you can kiss it anytime you want to.

ACES II, (Advanced Concept Ejection System 2) The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "When your arse is on the line, ACES II will work just fine."

A question for the TSA screeners monitoring this thread:

How do you actually cut off locks?

I assume that you're equipped with something efficient and minimally invasive, such as bolt cutters or master keys, rather than something courser, for example, pliers or a sledgehammer. I ask because, as other posters here have eloquently reasoned, I plan to lock my luggage and risk that my lock will be destroyed -- and replaced with a plastic cable once a search yields no banned items -- rather than risk that my more expensive belongings will be damaged, soiled, lost, or stolen. (And, as others have noted, if the lock and/or TSA-installed plastic cable goes missing, I have some tangible evidence that someone other than TSA personnel tampered with my bag.)

Would you recommend that I use locks with (a) a longer shackle that will make snipping easier for you and your associates, or (b) a lock that will disintegrate easier when vigorously twisted or struck by a blunt object? I seek to avoid undue damage to my luggage's zippers, lock holes, etc., so your input will help inform my choice of locks.

Thank you.

------------------

"I am confident that ordinary TSA employees working airport checkpoints see little or no information that is truly sensitive. Perhaps these employees are led to believe that they are in on some secret, because it helps them to feel that their job is important. That's a worthy objective, but let's not allow ourselves to be fooled."

Actually everything we see in print is SSI. All our procedures are also SSI. As for it being truely sensitive, that depends on your point of view. Whether it is or not I am not willing to risk my job divuldging it to anyone.

I can only speak for the airport I work at but we use master keys and bolt cutters. If it hard cased luggage with latch locks then we have to pry/break them. Unfortunatly I was told today that the airlines will no longer call a passenger to come down and unlock their items so we must break/cut/pry all locks now. I would suggest to all the passengers out there to complain heavly about this to the airlines.


PS Lockheed is NOT a very good company to work for in my opinion. From my experience with them they care nothing for the health of their employees.

Well DrTSA, that all depends on where you work. You are correct that some work with some very dangerous stuff. Fortunately I do not work with any of those (chemical skins). Ejection seats can be very dangerous too, but not in the same way as some of the stuff Lockheed deals with.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "618+ successful ejections, you can rely on ACES II"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dr. TSA:
Actually everything we see in print is SSI. All our procedures are also SSI.</font>

No adult can actually believe this. It's just impossible.

Bruce

Wrong thread for the above but if you read the rest of what I wrote it is pretty explanitory. I do not have to believe it I just have to follow it because that is what my job entails.

Oops. Sorry. Right thread. I guess I should clarify and say that everything the TSA puts out to us(screening force) is SSI and says either SSI or for official use only at the bottom.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Screeners signed an agreement stating that they would note give out any information obtained in written or verbal form that is deemed SSI.

This is no different than working for a company that won't allow you to share business secrets with others.

Do you think the government is just going to put out all their procedures and just say, "Hey Joe Terrorist, this is exactly what we do! Oh, and here are some suggestions on how you might try and bring the next plane down!"

Fact: There is such a thing as SSI. Screeners have agreed not to divulge any information that is deemed SSI (regardless of whether you or I think that it is actually sensitive in nature). There are approximately 65,000 people who know things that you don't and aren't about to tell you. This is just the way it is, accept it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
No adult can actually believe this. It's just impossible.

Bruce</font>

Well, I for one am bound by a non-disclosure agreement. There are things about my job that I cannot divulge. That comes from the government as well. All part of working within the military industrial complex. The same was true when I was in the USAF and loaded "special" weapons on F-111's in europe and was bound by the "Personnel Reliability Program" (PRP). There are just some things that the government just wants to keep close. By the way, there were hundreds of "weapons troops" so the numbers don't mean much, but the punishment for disclosure does.

I guess that when it comes to the TSA if people knew their procedures they could find a way to bypass them. Did anyone see the super bowl? Did it not look like Tampa Bay had a copy of Oaklands play book? They did have their former coach, so I guess thats about close enough. Give me the TSA playbook and I could figure out a way to get through them. If I can, so could a terrorist.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You don't need to know how it works, you just know that it will."

Edited for content.

[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 02-11-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tmspa:
Why is it so hard for you to understand? Screeners signed an agreement stating that they would note give out any information obtained in written or verbal form that is deemed SSI. </font>

It isn't hard to understand that screeners have to follow the rules forced on them as part of their jobs. This doesn't mean though, that you or anyone else has to believe that this really is sensitive information.

I might say that it is a crock when you say that you can't give a reason for something because it is considered SSI, but that doesn't mean I hold you personally responsible. I know you are just following rules. I still think those rules are BS though. And, I am sorry but 66,000 people can not keep a secret.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-12-2003).]

No, 66,000 people cannot keep a secret. The information that the basic screener has is probably not all that sensitive either. However, the TSA has determined that they would rather not have their procedures released to the public for security reasons. Now, if anyone can show me any corporation/company/agency that lets its business plan or operation procedures be released to the public then I will agree that the TSA is being unreasonable. In the business world I believe that such leaks usually end up in an insider trading charge ala Martha Stewart.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "When everything else has let you down, you can depend on ACES II."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
... Now, if anyone can show me any corporation/company/agency that lets its business plan or operation procedures be released to the public then I will agree that the TSA is being unreasonable. In the business world I believe that such leaks usually end up in an insider trading charge ala Martha Stewart."</font>

Ummmm, how about in numerous accounting and meeting documents, none marked confidential or really tracked in any way? As far as operation procedures, these things are distributed all OVER the place, including taping them to the door with emergency supplies!

I have worked in business offices for a VERY long time, and trust me when I say that if you do not do business with the government on BIG contracts the confidentiality is limited to those products and trademarks that make them bucks and little to nothing else.

Rarely do they even try to enforce the one about leaving to work for a competitor, or that any idea you come up with while an employee you have to delete from your brain when leaving.

Coffee delivery guys stocking the accounting breakroom of a typical American firm could glean enough during a few days' worth of break gossip alone to fairly accurately lay out the company's plans and operations.

S

Dr. TSA, thanks for responding to my query about lock cutting.


------------------

Day to day operations are one thing. Proprietary information is another. I would guess that the TSA considers its operation procedures more in that vein. Afterall, if they let everyone know how they do their job, then one could circumvent them and do something nefarious. For example, if we were to find out that they select every third passenger for secondary screening, how hard would it to be to jump in there and be the fourth passenger? I am not saying that their information equates to national security stuff, but I don't see where we need to know all their reasons for their procedures.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You might want to try the rest, but I would not recommend it."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
You guys really crack me up with your constitution waving. </font>

I don’t find the Constitution to be a laughing matter. It speaks volumes about your character if you do.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
I defended the constitution for 20+ years, big deal. </font>

You’re not the only veteran here, mister. I defended the Constitution in uniform as well. You’re not more qualified to pass judgment on what is and isn’t Constitutional simply by dint of your veteran status.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
You tear at it and wrap yourself in it</font>

Your hyperbole accomplishes no purpose. If you would like to have a serious discussion of matters Constitutional, I would be pleased to oblige you, either on this board or privately, through e-mail.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
all the while whining about how YOUR rights are being taken away from you. </font>

Actually, the issue is not removal of rights. The issue is government overstepping its bounds, which are quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution. However, when government oversteps its bounds, a necessary concomitant is the infringement of personal liberty. The two tend to go hand-in-hand.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
What "rights" have you personally lost? Now take a deep breath, get a paper bag to breath into if you need it. Now think REALLY hard, and ask yourself what rights you have really lost? What has the big bad government taken away from you? </font>

Hmm. Perhaps you were out sick the day the Fourth Amendment was discussed in your high school Civics class.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Opening my bag and searching it without probable cause – simply because I happen to be traveling by air – is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights. You don’t have “probable cause” to search my person or my effects simply because I’m getting on a plane.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
The right to travel? No, you fly all the time. The right to take your pocket knife or even your boxcutter with you? No, you can put it in your checked bag. </font>

I don’t believe anyone has seriously asserted a right to bring a boxcutter on board. Do you think that someone has?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
All the big bad government has done is put extra security steps in place to prevent another aircraft from being used as a weapon of mass destruction. </font>

I don’t believe that’s true, but since we’re not permitted to know anything of the TSA’s workings and internal policies, I think it’s best if we defer that part of the discussion. I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to. In the end, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
If you people spent as much time thinking about the security that is in place and dressing/packing accordingly, then I suspect that like me, you MIGHT get wanded once every 3 weeks or so if then. </font>

I haven’t been wanded in over three months, and I generally travel 2x/week. In any event, that’s not what this topic was about. It was about locking luggage. Let’s not lose sight of that.

In my opinion (and, apparently, in the opinions of many other posters here), leaving luggage unlocked is an invitation to theft. Not necessarily by the TSA, mind you, but theft nonetheless. And who’s to say whom the responsible party is? The TSA is already excusing itself from liability for theft – even though the TSA demands we leave our luggage unlocked. That’s analogous to a shopping center requiring that I leave my car unlocked in the lot while I go in to shop, even though the shopping center posts signs saying “No Bailment Created.” What happens if my car is stolen?

If something takes a walk from inside my luggage, the TSA won’t