SOP discussion
Dec 8, 2009, 6:05 am
#197
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
From Adobe itself...
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th.../redaction.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th.../redaction.pdf
Attempting to hide confidential content by obscuring or covering the information: Editors may try to cover sensitive information with a colored rectangle or by highlighting text in black. While these methods work for hard copy documents, they are not appropriate for electronic documents because there are ways to extract the information from the resulting PDF document.
It is also possible that sensitive information might be covered, either intentionally or not, by a non-sensitive image. Since it might be unintentional, the need for redaction might not be obvious to the editor.
It is also possible that sensitive information might be covered, either intentionally or not, by a non-sensitive image. Since it might be unintentional, the need for redaction might not be obvious to the editor.
Dec 8, 2009, 6:11 am
#198
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
From Adobe itself...
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th.../redaction.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th.../redaction.pdf
Dec 8, 2009, 6:45 am
#199
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
But Chairman Mao has the following to say:
http://it-crowd.cz/images/rtfm/original_rtfm.jpg
Dec 8, 2009, 7:08 am
#201
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
What was lost in my thinking about this whole debacle was the incongruity of the TSA claiming this incident wasn't a big deal because they posted an obsolete unredacted SOP. Since this was a solicitation to private industry for goods & services, one would think that the agency doing the acquisition would give the potential bidders all the information necessary to ensure the bidders understood the RFP and ensure that the government got what they paid for. For a procurement action, giving a contractor a key reference document which is obsolete makes no sense.
So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.
So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.
Dec 8, 2009, 7:10 am
#202
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Nobody. I read them occasionally though...
But Chairman Mao has the following to say:
http://it-crowd.cz/images/rtfm/original_rtfm.jpg
But Chairman Mao has the following to say:
http://it-crowd.cz/images/rtfm/original_rtfm.jpg
Well, you know
We don't love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's going to be alright?
Dec 8, 2009, 7:18 am
#203
Join Date: Jul 1999
Programs: QF WP, AA EXP
Posts: 3,520
This is truly amazing debacle by our favorite idiots.
Prior to it's release, we have had several "Chicken Little" TSO's here that claimed in essence that it would be the end of the world if they told us stuff out of the SOP. It was that secret and sacred. "SSI" they claimed with fire and brimstone.
While there is some interesting info (and just confirming what many here thought) - it's definitely not like Coke posted the recipe for their drinks on the Internet, or we released complete plans for a nuclear weapon.
Prior to it's release, we have had several "Chicken Little" TSO's here that claimed in essence that it would be the end of the world if they told us stuff out of the SOP. It was that secret and sacred. "SSI" they claimed with fire and brimstone.
While there is some interesting info (and just confirming what many here thought) - it's definitely not like Coke posted the recipe for their drinks on the Internet, or we released complete plans for a nuclear weapon.
Dec 8, 2009, 7:52 am
#204
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
More like end of the world for me because I would have been out of a job, even though I do feel that some of the stuff in the SOP shouldn't be SSI. But I can't tell it you to because I'd end losing my job and whistleblower protections are practically nil anyways,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:08 am
#205
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
What was lost in my thinking about this whole debacle was the incongruity of the TSA claiming this incident wasn't a big deal because they posted an obsolete unredacted SOP. Since this was a solicitation to private industry for goods & services, one would think that the agency doing the acquisition would give the potential bidders all the information necessary to ensure the bidders understood the RFP and ensure that the government got what they paid for. For a procurement action, giving a contractor a key reference document which is obsolete makes no sense.
So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.
So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.
Yes, it certainly would seem utterly reasonable that when soliciting private industry for goods & services, that said industries should understand the rules necessary to comply with that solicitation. However, now you've got a bit of a catch-22. You don't want to release your SSI to someone with whom you don't have an established business releationship; however, they can't enter into that relationship without understanding the SSI they need to abide by.
Posting a superceded ops manual might help bridge that gap. While this SOP has probably been superceded, I'm guessing that much if it is still valid. Furthermore, even if parts have been superceded, the overall document gives a potential bidder the sense as to what the rules are likely to be like if/when they get the contract. Sure, they'll have to make changes after the contract is awarded and they're brought into the SSI loop. But when don't contracts change?
But, again, that's wild speculation. If you force me to pick between the two options, it seems to me that Hanlon's Razor applies nicely here.
Dec 8, 2009, 9:00 am
#206
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
At the time the RFP went out, the SOP was most probably current and the SSI in it had been "redacted." Based on what the TSA has stated, the SOP has been updated since the RFP was released.
One insight is what the TSA considers to be SSI. Some of the sections in the SOP certainly don't appear to qualify, which raises doubt about other items the TSA deems SSI.
One insight is what the TSA considers to be SSI. Some of the sections in the SOP certainly don't appear to qualify, which raises doubt about other items the TSA deems SSI.
Dec 8, 2009, 9:16 am
#207
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Can you explain to us why you think any of it should be "SSI" (i.e., why the information should be shared with thousands of lowest-level public employees managed by TSA, who turn over at 25 - 50% per yer or so, but not shared directly with the general public)?
Dec 8, 2009, 9:44 am
#209
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
cross-reference related TSA blog post
For those unfamiliar with the term "PV" in this context: Boggie Dog meant TSA's blog. See The TSA Blog: TSA Response to Leaked Standard Operating Procedures, December 8, 2009
Dec 8, 2009, 9:54 am
#210
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
it's gotta be one of the better examples of a tsa baloney sandwich i've seen in a long time. oh, wait, they're all the same (and complete with the obligatory "tsa has many layers of security in place to keep the traveling public safe, and we are confident that the screening procedures we currently have put in place remain strong.") 
oh, wait, they're all the same (and complete with the obligatory "tsa has many layers of security in place to keep the traveling public safe, and we are confident that the screening procedures we currently have put in place remain strong.")