bonoman

A mention on The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12...edaction_fail/

sbm12

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9630/4.7.1.40 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

I asked a bit about some of the content as well as for an overall comment about the fact that the info has become public. She parried with a response that they are almost certainly not going to discuss the content of the document even though that horse has left the barn and left the rest of any potential reply open saying she would get back to me. We'll see how well that goes.

SATTSO

Would your property have still been searched?

I have said on this site multiple time when a pax ask for a STSO the TSO needs to get one, period. And the STSO should not have tried to write on your BP (my opinion was the STSO was going to make you a selectee on your return, which is wrong).

But even so, even if a LEO was summoned your bag would have been checked, right? And that would have waste even more of your time, correct?

And as I have said, this is the management SOP, not the screening SOP. They still should have rerun your bag through the x-ray again.

It seems the violations in SOP saved you time? I know, not what you want to hear....

greggwiggins

Just a note that the Travel Section editors and writers of The Washington Post are having a webchat a little over two hours from when I'm posting this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113002924.html

bonoman

I'd would have elected a real LEO searching my bag with common sense knowing I wasn't going into the sterile area anyway.

That point aside, the option was never given to me, and more importantly, it was deliberately hidden from me by TSA. It is time to TSA to stop this false shroud of security.

SATTSO

You need to read the sop again. Why do you think the LEO would conduct the search? I've never seen it happen. What I have seen happen is the LEO threatens the pax for arrest and then instructs the TSO to finish the search. This is most likely what would have happened in your case.

Not that the TSA employees treated you fairly or properly.

bonoman

Probably this part that says "ensure that screening of the individual’s accessible property is completed, either by TSA or an LEO."

This still distracts from the point that passengers don't have published rights. A citizen can murder someone and know what rights they have every step of the process - documented and consistent. Every LEO in the country knows what a Miranda is, but I can't fly on a plane without guessing which act of the TSA circus I'm going to be subjected to this week.

Maybe now the SOP is out there, some lobbying can be done to remedy this belligerent department of the US Gov't.

SATTSO

But why do you think a LEO would have conducted the search? I can only speak from my personal experiences, and when it has gotten to the point that a pax refuses the screening of their property, the only times I have seen a LEO conduct the search is when they arrest the pax. Other than that they basically tell the person the search will go on, do not be disruptive, and then they have the TSO continue the search. Notice the SOP does not say that the pax has a choice who will continue the search.

The way I look at it, and it's just my opinion/spin on it, the LEO is an intimidation factor. Everyone I work with says they notice a change in the pax's attitude when the LEOs arrive. The pax usually becomes more cooperative.

I guess you haven't seen where I have post that much of what is SSI should be public. We do not disagree on this.

Edit: my other point seems to remain valid: by not following the sop it seems they saved you time. Yes, the TSA employees were wrong, and most likely jerks. And I am a bit confused: you said you were very rushed for time, is that true or not?

BarbiJKM

At least one blogger has picked this up: http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2009...upid-move.html

When the TSA make mistakes this egregious it really isn’t all that hard to pick on them.

The latest is that their Screening Management Standard Operating Procedure is published on the internet. I actually like that. I don’t think that security through obscurity is a good idea. Of course the document is marked SSI and includes this footnote on every page:

SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
WARNING: THIS RECORD CONTAINS SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION THAT IS CONTROLLED UNDER 49 CFR PARTS 15 AND 1520. NO PART OF THIS RECORD MAY BE DISCLOSED TO PERSONS WITHOUT A “NEED TO KNOW,” AS DEFINED IN 49 CFR PARTS 15 AND 1520, EXCEPT WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION. UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE MAY RESULT IN CIVIL PENALTIES OR OTHER ACTION. FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE GOVERNED BY 5 U.S.C. 552 AND 49 CFR PARTS 15 AND 1520.

So the decision to publish it on the Internet is probably a questionable one. On top of that, however, is where the real idiocy shines. They chose to publish a redacted version of the document, hiding all the super-important stuff from the public. But they apparently don’t understand how redaction works in the electronic document world. See, rather than actually removing the offending text from the document they just drew a black box on top of it. Turns out that PDF documents don’t really care about the black box like that and the actual content of the document is still in the file.

Yup, their crack legal staff managed to screw this one up pretty badly. Want to know which twelve passports will instantly get you shunted over for secondary screening, simply by showing them to the ID-checking agent? Check out Section 2A-2 (C) (1) (b) (iv). Want to know the procedure for CIA-escorted passengers to be processed through the checkpoint? That’s in the document, too. Details on the calibration process of the metal detectors is in there. So is the procedure for screening foreign dignitaries.

It is pretty pathetic that the folks supposedly responsible for administering this “security” program cannot even be bothered to do the simplest parts of their job correctly. Then again, passing through the checkpoint every time I fly it is pretty clear that they do a lot of things incorrectly. Just chalk this one up to more of the same idiocy. More done badly.

Want to read it for yourself? Grab a copy here. Who knows how long they’ll keep it online.

Once you’ve downloaded the PDF you’ll see the black boxes. Simply highlight the text (start above and drag down to below the redaction area) so that you’re selecting all of the stuff in the “redacted” area. Copy the selection and paste it into the word processing client of your choice

bonoman

And this has been when someone has been found with a forbidden object and no longer wants to enter the sterile area? That defies logic.

Trust me, at the rate at which this guy was cherry picking things out of my bag, he was not interested in saving me time. While time was a driving factor, my reason for posting was wanting to know what those SOPs were.

sbm12

I'm looking forward to that.
And I found out about it here. ^^ to FlyerTalk.

FliesWay2Much

I just downloaded the .pdf file with the non-redaction redactions. Just for fun, I did a "show all comments" command from Adobe Pro in the hopes that the idiots had left all of the review comments in the document they released. Darn -- there were no comments I could find. Someone more skilled with Adobe Pro might want to take a look and maybe we can some juicy comments and notes they may have left in the document.

SATTSO

I didn't mean he meant to save you time. But here is what could have happened: the LEO comes over, talks to you, then while the LEO stands by, the same slow TSO searches your bag, and it took longer than I actual would have.

BarbiJKM

Thanks, sbm12, for spreading the news! And big thanks to OntheAsile for originally posting the link that led to this in Phil's thread re: FOIA request.

doober

I just followed the instructions above - some of the info that was redacted certainly doesn't read as "top secret" to me.