Heightened security at U.S airports (and overseas?)
Jul 9, 2014, 10:34 pm
#136
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
Y'all keep forgetting that just as this 'intel' or 'chatter' about undetectable bad devices came up, TSA just happened to be ready to roll out a new product that can...screen electronic devices without the need for powering up!
Now, given the choice: buy these "specially over-priced just for the taxpayer" devices and install them at every checkpoint and every baggage scanning area or.....submit to powering up devices or 'surrendering' them, which choice do you think airports (and kickback-receiving politicians) will make?
I think TSAs marketing ploy included a more rapid, aggressive ramp-up of testing and confiscating devices, insanely long security lines (something most of the rest of the world isn't as accustomed to as in the US) and tampered and rifled checked bags because people do check electronic devices, whether or not it is a wise idea. BA was totally on board - even going TSA one better and announcing that presenting a dead device at the checkpoint would lead to denied boarding, but BA chose to back off, possibly because it didn't look like other airlines were willing to out-do TSA's requirements.
Jul 10, 2014, 5:09 am
#137
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
It's already been implemented overseas, it just hasn't started here in the US.
Y'all keep forgetting that just as this 'intel' or 'chatter' about undetectable bad devices came up, TSA just happened to be ready to roll out a new product that can...screen electronic devices without the need for powering up!
Now, given the choice: buy these "specially over-priced just for the taxpayer" devices and install them at every checkpoint and every baggage scanning area or.....submit to powering up devices or 'surrendering' them, which choice do you think airports (and kickback-receiving politicians) will make?
I think TSAs marketing ploy included a more rapid, aggressive ramp-up of testing and confiscating devices, insanely long security lines (something most of the rest of the world isn't as accustomed to as in the US) and tampered and rifled checked bags because people do check electronic devices, whether or not it is a wise idea. BA was totally on board - even going TSA one better and announcing that presenting a dead device at the checkpoint would lead to denied boarding, but BA chose to back off, possibly because it didn't look like other airlines were willing to out-do TSA's requirements.
Y'all keep forgetting that just as this 'intel' or 'chatter' about undetectable bad devices came up, TSA just happened to be ready to roll out a new product that can...screen electronic devices without the need for powering up!
Now, given the choice: buy these "specially over-priced just for the taxpayer" devices and install them at every checkpoint and every baggage scanning area or.....submit to powering up devices or 'surrendering' them, which choice do you think airports (and kickback-receiving politicians) will make?
I think TSAs marketing ploy included a more rapid, aggressive ramp-up of testing and confiscating devices, insanely long security lines (something most of the rest of the world isn't as accustomed to as in the US) and tampered and rifled checked bags because people do check electronic devices, whether or not it is a wise idea. BA was totally on board - even going TSA one better and announcing that presenting a dead device at the checkpoint would lead to denied boarding, but BA chose to back off, possibly because it didn't look like other airlines were willing to out-do TSA's requirements.
Ah, now this makes even more sense with the new "detecting devices". Which makes it even more outrageous. And btw, why wouldn't bomb-detecting dogs work instead of overpriced new gadgets?
Jul 10, 2014, 6:29 am
#139
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
Maybe business organizations will band together to fight this if the choice is between losing a laptop with important data (or being phone-less) or missing a flight.
Hmm. When phrased that way, it sounds like a person ought to be guilty of more than purchasing a plane ticket.
Hmm. When phrased that way, it sounds like a person ought to be guilty of more than purchasing a plane ticket.
Jul 10, 2014, 6:47 am
#140
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
Wait until they realize that the most dangerous things on airplanes are...human beings!
Have they actually forced people to "dispose" of their non-working device yet, that we have heard about? That's the aspect I was referring to being implemented (not that the whole thing isn't disturbing to begin with!)
Ah, now this makes even more sense with the new "detecting devices". Which makes it even more outrageous. And btw, why wouldn't bomb-detecting dogs work instead of overpriced new gadgets?
Have they actually forced people to "dispose" of their non-working device yet, that we have heard about? That's the aspect I was referring to being implemented (not that the whole thing isn't disturbing to begin with!)
Ah, now this makes even more sense with the new "detecting devices". Which makes it even more outrageous. And btw, why wouldn't bomb-detecting dogs work instead of overpriced new gadgets?
Bomb-detecting dogs don't generate the kind of profit that NoS's and this machine (and the eventual patented American LGA-testing machine) generate.
Jul 10, 2014, 7:00 am
#141
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Technically, if TSA was officially "confiscating" those items, then those items would be in the possession of the TSA. TSA would then have complete freedom as to the ultimate disposition of those items: discard as refuse, resell on the open market, repurpose for other uses, and so on.
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
Jul 10, 2014, 7:08 am
#142
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Technically, if TSA was officially "confiscating" those items, then those items would be in the possession of the TSA. TSA would then have complete freedom as to the ultimate disposition of those items: discard as refuse, resell on the open market, repurpose for other uses, and so on.
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
The center also serves as a TSA surplus store for mid-Atlantic airports, so items confiscated or lost at a security checkpoint wind up here, too.
http://paindependent.com/2013/07/sta...-pa-warehouse/
Jul 10, 2014, 7:27 am
#143
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
There was a brief story on the NBC evening news last night about this. The TSA is going to require people, who automatically get extra screening on every flight, to turn on their electronics on domestic flights in the US.
That makes sense as long as terrorists don't give their devices to other terrorists that aren't on the watch list. It must be the same idea that terrorists would never combine their liquids after security.
That makes sense as long as terrorists don't give their devices to other terrorists that aren't on the watch list. It must be the same idea that terrorists would never combine their liquids after security.
Jul 10, 2014, 7:31 am
#144
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Technically, if TSA was officially "confiscating" those items, then those items would be in the possession of the TSA. TSA would then have complete freedom as to the ultimate disposition of those items: discard as refuse, resell on the open market, repurpose for other uses, and so on.
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
What's supposed to be happening under TSA rules is quite different: the items are discarded as refuse, and TSA never takes possession of them.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of reports of TSOs somehow "magically" coming into possession of those items. From what we've been told, that's strictly outside of TSA's standard procedures.
TL;DR: there is an important but subtle difference between "surrender" and "confiscation".
Discarded as refuse immediately upon "disposition" of item? I have every reason to doubt that is why the TSA policy was changed .
There is no material difference between being forced to surrender a valuable property item at a screening checkpoint and confiscation of the same at a screening checkpoint for eventual "disposition", for further examination or whatever else the government or its agents have in mind for these electronic devices once the screening process has begun. Note that once the screening process begins, the TSA doesn't want to allow an open door for people to end the screening process with the owner of the device retaining ownership of the device which the TSA considers "suspect" on a "suspect" subject to screening.
The TSA is relying upon United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1277 (5th Cir. 1973) type rulings to deny the "right to leave" with valid property rights intact over legitimate electronic devices that are powerless or otherwise non-functioning.
Last edited by GUWonder; Jul 10, 2014 at 7:37 am
Jul 10, 2014, 8:55 am
#145
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Have you considered getting better acquainted with senior government lawyers?
Discarded as refuse immediately upon "disposition" of item? I have every reason to doubt that is why the TSA policy was changed .
There is no material difference between being forced to surrender a valuable property item at a screening checkpoint and confiscation of the same at a screening checkpoint for eventual "disposition", for further examination or whatever else the government or its agents have in mind for these electronic devices once the screening process has begun. Note that once the screening process begins, the TSA doesn't want to allow an open door for people to end the screening process with the owner of the device retaining ownership of the device which the TSA considers "suspect" on a "suspect" subject to screening.
The TSA is relying upon United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1277 (5th Cir. 1973) type rulings to deny the "right to leave" with valid property rights intact over legitimate electronic devices that are powerless or otherwise non-functioning.
Discarded as refuse immediately upon "disposition" of item? I have every reason to doubt that is why the TSA policy was changed .
There is no material difference between being forced to surrender a valuable property item at a screening checkpoint and confiscation of the same at a screening checkpoint for eventual "disposition", for further examination or whatever else the government or its agents have in mind for these electronic devices once the screening process has begun. Note that once the screening process begins, the TSA doesn't want to allow an open door for people to end the screening process with the owner of the device retaining ownership of the device which the TSA considers "suspect" on a "suspect" subject to screening.
The TSA is relying upon United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1277 (5th Cir. 1973) type rulings to deny the "right to leave" with valid property rights intact over legitimate electronic devices that are powerless or otherwise non-functioning.
Even so, I'd argue that not being able to leave doesn't mean they should be able to permanently confiscate or destroy your property. At worst there ought to be some means for later retrieving an item once there's an opportunity to power up or further examine the device.
Jul 10, 2014, 9:04 am
#146
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
Again, what about the numerous types of devices out there that have no obvious "booted up" mode? External hard drives? Drives with card readers for storing photos and video? External battery packs? At most, these devices have an LED light. And solid state drives make no noise.
Will an LED light be sufficient "proof" that said battery pack is not a bomb?
Madness.
Will an LED light be sufficient "proof" that said battery pack is not a bomb?
Madness.
Jul 10, 2014, 9:45 am
#147
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
In short: TSA absolutely doesn't want to say that it is confiscating items --- not because of how it looks to the public, but because TSA then becomes responsible for handling those items properly.
Jul 10, 2014, 9:45 am
#148
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Maybe business organizations will band together to fight this if the choice is between losing a laptop with important data (or being phone-less) or missing a flight.
Hmm. When phrased that way, it sounds like a person ought to be guilty of more than purchasing a plane ticket.
Hmm. When phrased that way, it sounds like a person ought to be guilty of more than purchasing a plane ticket.
Jul 10, 2014, 10:16 am
#149
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Again, what about the numerous types of devices out there that have no obvious "booted up" mode? External hard drives? Drives with card readers for storing photos and video? External battery packs? At most, these devices have an LED light. And solid state drives make no noise.
Will an LED light be sufficient "proof" that said battery pack is not a bomb?
Madness.
Will an LED light be sufficient "proof" that said battery pack is not a bomb?
Madness.
Jul 10, 2014, 10:28 am
#150
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Live: HVN -- Work: The World
Programs: DL - exPlat (now Gold) ; AB - Gold ; TK - Gold; BMI - exGold; US - exChairman ; UA-ex1K; NW-exGold
Posts: 1,248
Presently it is in place through the 28th of July.
I have confirmed this with multiple people within the TSA, seen the Directive and TSA HQ has now confirmed it.