Maybe this will force you to actually vote in people that will bring this disgusting agency to its knees and get rid of it, so that I can finally stop being harassed every time I fly.
__________________
"About this time, they tell you you'll be landing shortly. Does that sound to you like we're gonna miss the runway?"
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
..... The only difference between the government-trained private contractors and TSA officers is that the government contractors wear a different uniform
......
Well, there is the inconvenient. factual difference of the private contractor (Team SFO) superior scores on IED recognition tests; don't let that cause rantus interruptus.
And from what I see at ROC, the private security uniforms are changing to faux cop complete with shiny tin badge, just like their TSA brethren.
Clearly, we have two different views of IED recognition.
The entire point is to find them. If you not finding them the vast majority of the time, there is, by definition, a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I value the results because it helps me identify the weaknesses I have to fix.......
As far as the private contractors vs. TSOs, I think that's pretty misleading. You've swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and that's certainly your prerogative.
Apparently you don't value results when you don't like the results. Then they are "pretty misleading"
As far as the private contractors vs. TSOs, I think that's pretty misleading. You've swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and that's certainly your prerogative.
So what is the difference between a TSO and private contractor? What is it that you think makes you better?
That's just it: we're all the same. The so-called private contractors are trained by TSA, they follow TSA SOP, they answer to a TSA FSD, they have to maintain TSA training requirements, and they are issued the exact same operational requirements.
There is no us and them.
Then why the difference between SFO and the rest of TSA as to detection rates? Personnel? Training (you say that training is identical)? Local management? Perhaps SFO cooked the books (i.e. was given a heads up warning by other airports as to items to look for and TSA testing techniques)?
The first three items don't worry me as much as the last one.
I'm not so sure there is a difference in detection rates. Yeah, there was that one report a couple years ago. I haven't seen anything that shows me a consistent high (or low) detection rate over a sustained period of time. And, in that one report, there's not enough detail in it for me to know exactly what type of tests or how they were administered. A lot has changed since then, in my opinion, for the better.
Well, with identical training it comes down to a combination of either personnel or management (only if the results weren't rigged). I'd be concerned if the numbers at any airport were either much better or much worse than at other airports. If the numbers were better, then why are they better? If significantly worse, then determine why those numbers are worse and do something about correcting the situation.
Likewise, the only numbers I've seen are several years old. Might be interesting to have those numbers published, but given the grief that folks have thrown back at TSA, that probably won't happen until the numbers greatly improve.
I don't think the excessive cash provision in the SOP was deliberately written as a gray area. I do agree that it is poorly written. There are a ton of mundane explanations ranging from no one thinking it would pose such a problem with interpretation to simply overlooking it because there was a publication deadline to meet and as long as it passed spellcheck, it was good to go. Who knows.
As I've said all along, I hope this court case clarifies the provision. I'd like to see it taken out completely!
Making any amount of cash, currency or monetary instruments contraband within the TSA world was just ignorant and tags the person who signed said document as ignorant also.
Clearly this person was trying to increase the scope of Administrative Searches into areas that appears to be illegal for this particular type of screening.
Making any amount of cash, currency or monetary instruments contraband within the TSA world was just ignorant and tags the person who signed said document as ignorant also.
Clearly this person was trying to increase the scope of Administrative Searches into areas that appears to be illegal for this particular type of screening.
A memo called 'excessive' cash contraband. Why not issue a new memo deleting that line? Seems pretty simple.
The only time it would be an issue would be if they were, for example, 8 x 10 glossies obviously involving elementary school-aged children.
Which is why I used that as an example.
Quote:
Otherwise, the only real issue is the discretion required when coming across an adult magazine.
The other issue is nude-but-not-pornographics photos of children, for example, a naked 3-year old running through a sprinkler.
Quote:
I guess what I failed to mention is that IF a supervisor determines that this is something suspicious, the first option is to simply ask the passenger. If the passenger refuses, then it's a simple matter of referring it to the LEO and let the LEO ask the questions.
Did you really mean that the way you said it? If so, you've created not only a 4th Amendment issue but a 5th as well. You can't use refusal to answer such a question as establishing any level of suspicion: if you have a procedure which distinguishes between the case where a passenger answers or refuses to answer, that procedure seems prima facia unconstitutional.
Quote:
there are some instances when a supervisor is required by SOP to make the notification
As has been said before, it is precisely this being a requirement in some cases that produces the constitutional problem.
Quote:
Once the administrative search is complete and the matter is turned over to the LEO, it is the LEO's responsibility to investigate the matter properly. If the carry-on is open and the baggie is now in plain view, the police officer will handle the matter as he/she has been trained. At this point, TSA is out of the picture.
No, because baggie would not have been in plain view but for the administrative search! I think we all agree that if the TSO had presented the bag to the LEO in the same state as they got it (i.e., closed), the LEO would need a warrant to open the bag. What's happening here is that the administrative search is being used to circumvent the need for that warrant, and that's not permissible.
Quote:
If a TSO conducts a search specifically looking for drugs, the search is completely illegal and unconstitutional. If an LEO were to prompt, encourage, hint or otherwise have a TSO initiate a search for the specific purpose of looking for drugs, then it would still be an illegal search and both would face disciplinary action.
Doesn't the fact that TSA brags on its web site about "finds" of illegal but non-prohibited objects serve as such "encouragement"?
As a trainer, I oppose publishing training statistics. They always lead to the wrong conclusion. I know that the public hates to hear that, but there ya go.
The intent of a training program is to determine the level of proficiency and introduce something that is more difficult in order to force that operator to improve. Works extremely well as long as it's in-house. Becomes a huge PITA once it's published because then the FSD staff pukes get all excited over public perceptions, etc. making it very difficult for me as a trainer to win the trust of the floor operators so I can train them properly. I could run easy bags and then have everyone high-fiving themselves over the "improved" detection rate, but you and I know that it would all be a pile of stinky, steamy,sticky horse dung.
FWIW, I get into some pretty heated debates over this with my boss as well as the TSA staff pukes who administer the Red Team tests.
Cooking the numbers in order to show an improvement does no one any good and yes, I've seen people so desperate for any improvement in their numbers that they do stuff that borders on criminal/immoral. IMHO the only numbers that count are the number of incident free flights since the Red Team tests probably represent threats pushing the outer edges of the envelope for actual threats.
Again, if the average for the Red Team tests is pretty much the same across the country then the Red Team test numbers probably don't accurately represent reality. They represent the test. The bean counters like numbers. They like the ability to assign a numerical value to something that is qualitative since that handles well in spreadsheets where feelings/impressions don't sort well.
