Boggie Dog

Chertoff. The guy who went on the national news channels pushing for TSA Strip Search Machines without disclosing he had a personal financial interest in the game.

chollie

Forgive me, this isn't directed at you as an individual, but your reply sounds suspiciously like "they won't be any better than us". I wish you had said "we can and will do better - and you may even see the improvements in your lifetime."

Do you think that TSA, by and large, is doing an acceptable job? No significant need for improvement? Is it currently an organization you take pride in?

In another post, you mentioned that TSOs in uniform are held to the same standards as many other employees - their behavior reflects on the organization. When I pointed out the problems (and consequences) of trying to address a TSO's behavior (cutting in line because "We're federal officers"), you were silent.

There have been enough posts on other forums (and private PMs on this forum) to convince me that TSOs who complain that management consistently chooses not to address problem employees, that management is consistently ignorant of SOP (which is possibly why managers back employees who are wrong) are telling the truth.

Is this really the best the organization can do? Have you never seen a fellow employee act out of line? If so, what did you do about it? Did you speak up (see something, say something)? Or did you tacitly support that employee's wayward actions? If you did, you put me potentially at risk.

I think the reason most of us are against profiling is because it is highly unlikely to be implemented 'Israeli-style'. If TSA (officially) starts profiling, it will likely nominate TSOs (management favorites), give them a big pay raise, buy a bloated, expensive 'training package' from a vendor with TSA connections, send the favored TSOs to 2 weeks of training and call it an effective program.

And the truth is (as BOS has recently confirmed), TSA already profiles. It 'profiles' old women and little children and attractive women and women travelling alone and folks with language or hearing difficulties because they are easier to bully into submission (didn't work so well with John Tyner or Rand Paul, probably why healthy able-bodied men are usually left alone). TSA profiles (see BOS for details) those suspected of other, non-TSA concerns - drugs, for example. And TSA 'reverse' profiles - there is absolutely no other explanation for how two bricks of very dangerous stuff in a bag that had already been pulled for a bag check weren't caught in Fayetteville - the 'reverse' profiling assumed all servicemen are good guys.

I've stated I don't think private contractors will improve the experience, partly because I think TSA will monitor private contractors in a way it does not currently monitor its own staff. I think private contractors will be held to a higher, more rigorous standard (more offensive to pax). I'm not concerned about inconsistencies between contractors because I already experience that every time I approach a checkpoint; indeed, I've been at a checkpoint and heard two TSOs arguing about proper SOP in front of pax. I think folks are just so tired of the nonsense that it seems like anything has the potential to be better.

I also find it hard to believe that a private contractor who ran an outfit the way EWR and HNL and BOS are being run would get away with ignoring a Congressional demand to appear.

One tiny point: you are clearly well-informed about the agency. Could you address something posted recently? There have been recent reports (and an explanatory rumor from a source considered highly reliable and level-headed on this forum) that TSA HQ has announced a crackdown on the 3-1-1 baggies - forget to remove it or deliberately don't remove it and you will be thoroughly screened and then sent to the back of the line to repeat the process. It has already been happening. Is this true? Is it truly the hallmark of a professional organization? Does this punitive action actually contribute to effective, efficient screening in any way?

halls120

How is it irrelevant? Why do we have this massive, expensive and unnecessary federal workforce? You've forgotten the totally absurd "to professionalize, we must federalize" rant we heard so often after 9/11?

The fact of the matter is that the taxpayers are paying far more for TSA than we did for the contract security in place before 9/11. What possible rationale can you put forward for maintaining the status quo?

You expect anyone to believe that Chertoff - who is profiting from that decision - had nothing to do with it?

In any event, the decision - no matter who made it - was insanely stupid, given that we are spending 178,000 per unit to field something that has at best a 60% success rate.

FLgrr

A private contractor still follows the same rules and process. They are not as worried about the image of the TSA and showing force. The premise of the process is that EVERYONE is a criminal trying to cause harm.

NY-FLA

60% success rate?
Please define success.

Even the TSA blog has given up on claiming success because the whole fleet of N.O.S.'s across the whole damn country discovers just 1 or 2 tubes of toothpaste per week. (The rest appears to be drugs- fodder for an entirely different thread.)

I don't think that even if you, as Pistole attempted in congressional testimony, claim success for a N.O.S. alarming on pocket lint , you can back up a 60% success claim.

halls120

Shortly after the underwear bomber did his thing, a high level DHS delegation traveled to a number of major international airports outside the United States, including those such as AMS who were then evaluating the AITs. This delegation was told that if the UWB had been screened using the AIT, they would have had a 60% chance at best of detecting the device he was wearing.

The German government experienced an even lower success rate.

Basically, every time you see one of the AITs at a US airport, you are witnessing 171,000 wasted tax dollars.

chollie

I suspect there are also some generous maintenance contracts.

RadioGirl

I assume by "constitution" you mean the constitution of the Souhegan Kennel Club or the Sacramento Valley MG Car Club, because there's precious little evidence that the TSA "has to follow" the Constitution of the United States of America. Unless by "follow the constitution" you mean stating that passengers give up all their rights when they enter an airport checkpoint. Or that stopping a passenger based on the language on his shirt, or reading a doctor's client records, or strip searching elderly women is "following the Constitution."
Oh, yeah, everyone has the time and money to sue the Federal gov't. Even those who do (go, Jon!!) get run around by procedural nonsense. "If you don't like it you can sue" is no way to run anything.
It would be much easier to sue a private company for strip searching elderly women, pulling a young woman's shirt down, abusing disabled children, and stealing food from diabetics that to sue the Feds. Or, yeah, I could take my business to another airport or airline.

cbn42

No court has ever ruled that the TSA is exempt from the constitution. You may believe that they are not following (your interpretation of) the constitution, but they are still bound by it. Lawsuits against the TSA have been filed and are progressing, albeit slowly.

It's better than "if you don't like it, you're out of luck" like it would be with a private company.

No it wouldn't. On what basis would you sue? You agreed to it when buying your ticket, end of discussion. As I said earlier, private companies are not bound by the bill of rights, so you would have no basis for a lawsuit.

They are all likely to be about the same.

jkhuggins

Actually, one of the biggest complaints about TSA I see here is that the TSA experience is not the same at different airports --- in fact, it can vary pretty wildly.

chollie

I don't particularly care when the physical handling (degree of) varies from airport to airport.

I do care when the inconsistency results in something that has been openly allowed at other checkpionts gets confiscated. There should be no inconsistency in determining whether or not an object is a threat or not.

If my single chapstick is OK without a baggie at one airport, it should be allowed at all airports.

RadioGirl

Of course no court has been as blunt as to rule that the TSA is exempt from the Constitution. But the court cases either drag on for years (Nicholas George and the Arabic flash cards) or the TSA gets a slap on the wrist (Phil Mocek) or TSA promise real hard to stop doing something if you'll just go away (Steve Bierfeldt and the $4700). TSA's approach has clearly been "we'll try everything we can until we're told it's not Constitutional" rather than "we won't do [x] because it wouldn't be Constitutional." And Congress keeps looking the other way and shoveling money into TSA.
I doubt Tom Sawyer agreed to having his colostomy bag ruptured when he bought a ticket. Sharon Cissna didn't agree to removing her breast prostheses when she bought a ticket. I doubt this woman from Texas agreed to have her blouse pulled down, while being laughed at by male screeners, when she bought her ticket. I doubt Lenore Zimmerman (among many others) agreed to a strip search and a bleeding leg when she bought a ticket.

If a bumbling employee of a private company tried any of these stunts, you bet I'd have the basis for a lawsuit. Not because the private company failed to observe the Bill of Rights, but simply on the basis of assault, intimidation, and injury.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There's scope for an airline to differentiate themselves on the basis of respectful, reasonable, intelligent security screening. But even if they're all the same, (a) that would be better than the incompetent inconsistency of the TSA, and (b) they could all be held accountable to a greater degree than the TSA currently is.

Michael El

I wonder if it would be considered assaulting a "federal officer" if one were to knock the sh!t out of a contractor goon.

castrobenes

It's irrelevant because the choice isn't between a Pre-9/11 aviation security model and TSA. The choice is between contract and federal screeners both following the same SOP with TSA calling the shots in both cases. The amount of money spent of screening doesn't change.

I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm arguing most of the people supporting the replacement of TSA screeners with contract screeners have no idea what they are talking about. They think the discussion is about the AIT debate, the Constitution, or pat-downs.

Elsewhere you argue that replacement of TSA screeners with contractors prepares the groundwork for removal of other aspects of aviation security you oppose. Let me present to you a different prediction.

Contractors, as you correctly observe below, are already heavily invested in the aviation security infrastructure. Once they are profiting off screener labor, they will oppose any attempts to reduce the role of screeners at the airport. They may not lobby in public, but their voice is very loud behind closed door.

Pre-emption: You may suggest that the solution is to change the relationship between TSA/DHS/USFG and lobbyists. That might actually work as a solution. However, you actually have to enact lobbying reform rather just use this as a means to get out of this argument.



All of these decisions happened through the use of contractors which you seem to support. If you oppose these things, it seems logical not to expand the role of contractors.

castro

castrobenes

I'm not going to address the 3-1-1 issue.

This post is about my perception because that is what you asked about. I am not going to give details because they are unimportant. My perception is my perception, just as yours is yours. But if you ask me why I do things. Here goes.

I am not in a position to commit the TSA to do anything. In this forum, I don't speak for the agency. I speak for myself.

I am proud of my role in the agency and the things I have done to improve it. I am proud of my airport, and I am proud to be an agency employee. But I also realize we have made mistakes. At work, I have seen TSA improve dramatically. Sometimes I have seen those changes happen on a daily basis.

castro