SOP discussion
Dec 8, 2009, 3:23 pm
#226
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Dec 8, 2009, 3:40 pm
#227
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
I just gave the older version a once-over and there are some subtle differences, enough for me to believe the claim that the document may have never actually been put into production. Interestingly enough, the sections that are redacted in the two versions are actually different as well. Page 5 of the papersplease doc has a rather obvious example. In that version 2A-3(A) has only the 25% redacted. In the version from the FBO.gov site the whole paragraph was removed, as was paragraph B which is the unlabeled part under A in the papersplease version.
So there are some differences but it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content is the same. The version we see may truly have "never been approved" but that doesn't mean that it isn't close enough to be considered a substantially accurate snapshot of what was going on at that time.
So there are some differences but it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content is the same. The version we see may truly have "never been approved" but that doesn't mean that it isn't close enough to be considered a substantially accurate snapshot of what was going on at that time.
Dec 8, 2009, 4:30 pm
#229
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I just gave the older version a once-over and there are some subtle differences, enough for me to believe the claim that the document may have never actually been put into production. Interestingly enough, the sections that are redacted in the two versions are actually different as well. Page 5 of the papersplease doc has a rather obvious example. In that version 2A-3(A) has only the 25% redacted. In the version from the FBO.gov site the whole paragraph was removed, as was paragraph B which is the unlabeled part under A in the papersplease version.
So there are some differences but it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content is the same. The version we see may truly have "never been approved" but that doesn't mean that it isn't close enough to be considered a substantially accurate snapshot of what was going on at that time.
So there are some differences but it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content is the same. The version we see may truly have "never been approved" but that doesn't mean that it isn't close enough to be considered a substantially accurate snapshot of what was going on at that time.
The text is the EXACT same. The only differences between the two is formatting.
When the papersplease FOIA request was processed the clerk copy pasted the relevant text from the master into the SOP template. By using a different font size than the "never issued" copy caused the page breaks to be different. The part of the document that states the Revision number, Date, Implementation date, and Sensitive Security Information is a header. The SSI claim at the bottom is a footer.
This header and footer are part of a generic template used for the Mangement SOP SSI requests for this revision. Note the lack of page numbering on the papersplease copy.
The "never issued" document contains the proper page numbering. If the page numbering was redacted there would have been a black mark on the papersplease copy.
The missing "B" on the papersplease document was due to the clerk missing that paragraph on the initial copy paste. When the clerk corrected for the missing paragraph they failed to include the "B".
As for the difference in redaction, that would be because the people redacting were different and the purpose of the redaction was different. One was in response to a FOIA request and the other was in response to a bid.
I will have to disagree with your source and Blogger Bob's claim that this document was never issued. If by some chance this document was not issued then the revision number would have been different than the one on the papersplease copy.
Dec 8, 2009, 4:53 pm
#230
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
credit to the Identity Project, part of the First Amendment Project
To clarify, when Trollkiller refers to "the papersplease copy" he means the copy that was published on the Web site of the Identity Project. IDP's Internet domain is papersplease.org. They are part of the First Amendment Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. IDP provides advice, assistance, publicity, and legal defense to those who find their rights infringed, or their legitimate activities curtailed, by demands for identification and build public awareness about the effects of ID requirements on fundamental rights, and are building a central repository of information relating to identity-based domestic security programs.
Dec 8, 2009, 4:59 pm
#231
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
I just gave the papersplease.org's FOIA copy and the "never issued" copy a thorough comparison. I printed out the papersplease copy and used Adobe Acrobat Professional to read the "never issued" copy aloud. (cool feature) I read along with the papersplease copy and verified every word.
The text is the EXACT same. The only differences between the two is formatting.
The text is the EXACT same. The only differences between the two is formatting.
It seems that it is, in fact, just formatting that is different. I just happened to find that one bit my first time through. I guess I'm that good.
I will be preparing some specific details tonight on the two and will hit up the TSA with that either late tonight or first thing in the morning.
Dec 8, 2009, 4:59 pm
#232
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 158
The fact that this was released with multiple TSA approvals is not a surprise. It follows the current government policy of "When in doubt,dumb down."
What is more important is that now we know in writing some of the things they are required to do and haven't; and some of the things they have been doing and were not allowed.
TSA managers and TSO's, now know we know .....
__________________________________________________ _____
Last edited by OnTheAsile; Dec 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Dec 8, 2009, 5:07 pm
#233
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
Finally the truth in the MSM
For those in the air who missed it: 12/8 ABC evening news. Charlie Gibson's lead story: TSA Effs Up Big Time, releases unredactable SOP online. Long story, not a kind word about TSA. Media finally running stories about the bozos at TSA that sound like FT threads.
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
Dec 8, 2009, 5:13 pm
#234
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
For those in the air who missed it: 12/8 ABC evening news. Charlie Gibson's lead story: TSA Effs Up Big Time, releases unredactable SOP online. Long story, not a kind word about TSA. Media finally running stories about the bozos at TSA that sound like FT threads.
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
Dec 8, 2009, 5:13 pm
#235
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
For those in the air who missed it: 12/8 ABC evening news. Charlie Gibson's lead story: TSA Effs Up Big Time, releases unredactable SOP online. Long story, not a kind word about TSA. Media finally running stories about the bozos at TSA that sound like FT threads.
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
And it will surprise no one what the news report contains: "We asked TSA for a spokesman to talk to us, but they refused to provide one." What? Blogdad Bob is on the payroll full time to spread propaganda and CYA spin. Did he have to stay home? Was his puppy sick today?
Dec 8, 2009, 5:43 pm
#238
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Dec 8, 2009, 5:49 pm
#240
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Just got off the phone with a reporter. The WaPo Homeland Security Corespondent is apparently putting a piece together tonight for publication soon. ^^^
They're going after the TSA pretty hard it would seem.
They're going after the TSA pretty hard it would seem.