TSA Not Protecting SSI
Aug 23, 2012, 10:58 pm
#16
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
Aug 24, 2012, 5:31 am
#17
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
SSI got its start in the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-366), which, among other things, authorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to prohibit disclosure of information obtained whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information obtained from any person; or would reduce the safety of passenger — all notwithstanding the Freedom of Information Act. On June 28, 1976, FAA published a proposal to create Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191 entitled “Withholding Security Information from Disclosure under the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974.” Part 191 created the category of sensitive but unclassified information now known as Sensitive Security Information (SSI), and described the information to be protected from disclosure, including “the security program of any airport; the security program of any air carrier; any device for the detection of any explosive or incendiary device or weapon; and, any contingency security plan.”
Aug 27, 2012, 10:45 am
#19
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
From the article under History:
I know, it's Wikipedia, but let's assume it is true. Our despised SSI was first proposed to protect personal information. How ironic. And reading through the history of SSI, we see the typical unrestrained expansion of government authority at the expense of personal liberty and open government.
I know, it's Wikipedia, but let's assume it is true. Our despised SSI was first proposed to protect personal information. How ironic. And reading through the history of SSI, we see the typical unrestrained expansion of government authority at the expense of personal liberty and open government.
Dec 29, 2012, 5:49 am
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
A few more pictures at the other checkpoint for IAH Terminal C showing TSA's lack of interest in protecting SSI. While getting my grope from a lead (the lead did it because I once again mentioned medical for the reason and yet once again not offered the opportunity to go through the WTMD to see if I alarmed, so they thought they may need someone higher up to grope me), I mentioned the display of SSI and he referred to the higher-ups unwilling to do anything about it.
Dec 29, 2012, 8:14 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Cool.
I am going to have to get a photo of my bag going through somehow. I may just ask. It is my bag and the reason they say they can not allow this is because of passenger privacy. Yeah, that will work.
Compared to this stuff, the display of my bag looks like the Vegas strip at night.
I am going to have to get a photo of my bag going through somehow. I may just ask. It is my bag and the reason they say they can not allow this is because of passenger privacy. Yeah, that will work.
Compared to this stuff, the display of my bag looks like the Vegas strip at night.
Jan 7, 2013, 2:07 pm
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Let's move on to BOS Terminal A and the Pre-Check line (though the others were not any better):
Looks like shoes and a computer went through last.
I was traveling through at about 6:45 am on New Year's Day with my wife and mother (who is over 75), both who went ahead of me. Mom and I declined the WBI. Per usual, I state that I am a "medical" for the WBI, but once again, I am told I will receive the full opt-out treatment. Since I had the temerity to question this, it was determined that a two-striper should do the honors.
After I pointed out my items, another two-striper, literally dropped my carry-on with handblown glass ornaments inside right on top of my laptop. Then he dropped my photography equipment bag with all its glass on top of my shoes. Asking him to be more careful elicited not a care.
While the first two-striper started the pat-down, I asked him about the medical procedures and he stated that it was only for those with medical devices. I am not sure that we ever understood each other about those unable to perform what the WBI requires.
He says that he knows the SOP, intimating that I do not. At one point he asks if I do work for the TSA since it appears I have more knowledge about procedures than the average passenger. He stated that he had been doing this for 10 years, likes his job and wants to keep it, so he doesn't plan on losing it for not following procedure. A decade on the job and he has been promoted exactly once and is still doing patdowns.
So he finishes and the swab is negative. I gather my belongings, pull out my camera and snap the above picture and put my lens cap back on. Only after this long wait does the female assist arrive for my mother, who was ahead of me in line. So I turn my attention towards that way while ensuring that I am staying out of the way.
After a little bit of patting down, I notice that the TSO has stopped in the middle of the procedure with my mother. A two-striper comes over and tells me that photography is prohibited. I noted that perhaps a review of Section 2.7 of his SOP was in order. He then storms off and, as he is walking pass the female TSO, states that he is going to get a supervisor.
The female TSO continues to refuse to complete the screening of my mother and states loud enough for me to hear that she doesn't want to be on YouTube. What is interesting is I never even took the lens cap off my camera during this.
After a little bit at least two (if not three) three-stripers are on the checkpoint plus a suit. It's beginning to look like a perimeter, except in this case they are watching my 75+ year old mother being patted down by another female TSO since the first one refused to complete the screening. So my mother had to suffer the indignity of being subjected to further invasiveness because a female TSO was too sensitive. Instead of letting the first female TSO off, she should have been ordered to complete the screening and not be kowtowed to when she failed to perform her duties.
None of the supervisors engaged either myself or, to my knowledge, my mother in any conversation about what was occurring. It was only in the middle of the second patdown that I approached the three-striper nearest me and asked him if photography is prohibited. He said it wasn't but then something to the effect that certain things were. When trying to determine what he meant, he was rather cryptic and said something to the effect that he would let me know if I started photographing whoever or whatever he was alluding to.
I mentioned to him that a two-striper had told me specifically that photography was prohibited, but he intimated that I must have misunderstood what he said. So what exactly did that two-striper go and tell his supervisors that caused at least three of them to come over, but yet none approached me about the two-striper's cause for concern? I have an idea.
I did mention that stating photography is prohibited has a "chilling effect", but I didn't get the impression that he understood the gravitas of those words.
To top it off, unbeknownst to me, the TSO required my mother to remove her shoes and she protested as she has never had to do such since the new rule went into effect. She eventually complied with the order. Afterwards, she discussed this in my presence with a three-striper, who stated that it was a subjective test by the TSO and if the TSO felt the passenger looked under 75, then shoes come off. Since in his mind, she didn't look over 65, he felt the TSO was correct. Well that's a very interesting reading of the SOP and a loophole big enough to run a truck through it, which we let him know about.
Looks like shoes and a computer went through last.
I was traveling through at about 6:45 am on New Year's Day with my wife and mother (who is over 75), both who went ahead of me. Mom and I declined the WBI. Per usual, I state that I am a "medical" for the WBI, but once again, I am told I will receive the full opt-out treatment. Since I had the temerity to question this, it was determined that a two-striper should do the honors.
After I pointed out my items, another two-striper, literally dropped my carry-on with handblown glass ornaments inside right on top of my laptop. Then he dropped my photography equipment bag with all its glass on top of my shoes. Asking him to be more careful elicited not a care.
While the first two-striper started the pat-down, I asked him about the medical procedures and he stated that it was only for those with medical devices. I am not sure that we ever understood each other about those unable to perform what the WBI requires.
He says that he knows the SOP, intimating that I do not. At one point he asks if I do work for the TSA since it appears I have more knowledge about procedures than the average passenger. He stated that he had been doing this for 10 years, likes his job and wants to keep it, so he doesn't plan on losing it for not following procedure. A decade on the job and he has been promoted exactly once and is still doing patdowns.
So he finishes and the swab is negative. I gather my belongings, pull out my camera and snap the above picture and put my lens cap back on. Only after this long wait does the female assist arrive for my mother, who was ahead of me in line. So I turn my attention towards that way while ensuring that I am staying out of the way.
After a little bit of patting down, I notice that the TSO has stopped in the middle of the procedure with my mother. A two-striper comes over and tells me that photography is prohibited. I noted that perhaps a review of Section 2.7 of his SOP was in order. He then storms off and, as he is walking pass the female TSO, states that he is going to get a supervisor.
The female TSO continues to refuse to complete the screening of my mother and states loud enough for me to hear that she doesn't want to be on YouTube. What is interesting is I never even took the lens cap off my camera during this.
After a little bit at least two (if not three) three-stripers are on the checkpoint plus a suit. It's beginning to look like a perimeter, except in this case they are watching my 75+ year old mother being patted down by another female TSO since the first one refused to complete the screening. So my mother had to suffer the indignity of being subjected to further invasiveness because a female TSO was too sensitive. Instead of letting the first female TSO off, she should have been ordered to complete the screening and not be kowtowed to when she failed to perform her duties.
None of the supervisors engaged either myself or, to my knowledge, my mother in any conversation about what was occurring. It was only in the middle of the second patdown that I approached the three-striper nearest me and asked him if photography is prohibited. He said it wasn't but then something to the effect that certain things were. When trying to determine what he meant, he was rather cryptic and said something to the effect that he would let me know if I started photographing whoever or whatever he was alluding to.
I mentioned to him that a two-striper had told me specifically that photography was prohibited, but he intimated that I must have misunderstood what he said. So what exactly did that two-striper go and tell his supervisors that caused at least three of them to come over, but yet none approached me about the two-striper's cause for concern? I have an idea.
I did mention that stating photography is prohibited has a "chilling effect", but I didn't get the impression that he understood the gravitas of those words.To top it off, unbeknownst to me, the TSO required my mother to remove her shoes and she protested as she has never had to do such since the new rule went into effect. She eventually complied with the order. Afterwards, she discussed this in my presence with a three-striper, who stated that it was a subjective test by the TSO and if the TSO felt the passenger looked under 75, then shoes come off. Since in his mind, she didn't look over 65, he felt the TSO was correct. Well that's a very interesting reading of the SOP and a loophole big enough to run a truck through it, which we let him know about.
Jan 8, 2013, 8:21 am
#24
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
To top it off, unbeknownst to me, the TSO required my mother to remove her shoes and she protested as she has never had to do such since the new rule went into effect. She eventually complied with the order. Afterwards, she discussed this in my presence with a three-striper, who stated that it was a subjective test by the TSO and if the TSO felt the passenger looked under 75, then shoes come off. Since in his mind, she didn't look over 65, he felt the TSO was correct. Well that's a very interesting reading of the SOP and a loophole big enough to run a truck through it, which we let him know about.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/20001258-post1.html
Mar 21, 2013, 10:39 pm
#26
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
My week of SSI:
BDL, on the metal grated cover on top of the X-ray rollers, they have training manuals or some other kind of book that read something along the lines of "SSI," on the top cover.
So I thought, ok, it was one lane that had an idiot that just left a book out in the open, oh no, they were in every lane.
I wanted to photograph it, and/or grab it and see what happened, but it was too early.
....Then, at TPA, they leave all the X-Ray monitors on overnight and in plain view when the checkpoint's closed. So maybe it's only the elusive SSI during the checkpoint's normal operating business hours. All other times, it's just a silly x-ray screen.
BDL, on the metal grated cover on top of the X-ray rollers, they have training manuals or some other kind of book that read something along the lines of "SSI," on the top cover.
So I thought, ok, it was one lane that had an idiot that just left a book out in the open, oh no, they were in every lane.
I wanted to photograph it, and/or grab it and see what happened, but it was too early.
....Then, at TPA, they leave all the X-Ray monitors on overnight and in plain view when the checkpoint's closed. So maybe it's only the elusive SSI during the checkpoint's normal operating business hours. All other times, it's just a silly x-ray screen.
Mar 22, 2013, 12:24 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,778
(C'mon, like none of YOU have lost something in a handbag or backpack and thought "if I had a few minutes with the checkpoint x-ray I could probably find it".
)
Last edited by RadioGirl; Mar 22, 2013 at 12:40 am
Mar 22, 2013, 4:07 am
#28
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Is it just the monitors which are left on, or the entire x-ray system? (Yes, actually, I am willing to believe that TSA is really that dumb.) That is, could a person put their bag through the x-ray when the checkpoint's closed and see what it looks like?
(C'mon, like none of YOU have lost something in a handbag or backpack and thought "if I had a few minutes with the checkpoint x-ray I could probably find it".)
(C'mon, like none of YOU have lost something in a handbag or backpack and thought "if I had a few minutes with the checkpoint x-ray I could probably find it".
)Somehow, I don't see this ending well.
Your
deserves at least a and a 
.I would assign a 
but it does have a certain appeal.
Mar 22, 2013, 6:07 am
#29
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The lower of the two Carolinas
Programs: Former AA Gold, SkyMiles, Hilton HHonors, SPG Gold, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 387
Mar 22, 2013, 7:43 am
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956