Originally Posted by
HSVTSO Dean
the TSA is pretty efficient at gathering all of it's evidence right there at the checkpoint.
Technically accurate, but that'd be a big stretch of the language in the CFR. Like I said before, you have to start getting pretty belligerent before the fines get whipped out. I daresay it's easier to get a citation from the police on the side of the street for disturbing the peace than it is to get a fine from TSA where you didn't bring any threat-items (for lack of a better term; basically, it means any prohibited item that requires us to notify law enforcement officers) through the checkpoint.
And while the TSA will never admit it, this is one of the key reasons that the ID check is so important to the agency. Just put lipstick on the pig and call it "security".
Originally Posted by
mgilmer
But that is just it. You are not a customer. You are a suspected criminal terrorist. You deserve no response. You are evil.
+1
Originally Posted by
halls120
In my prior career, I was the drafter of final agency action of all civil penalties assessed by my then-agency. Most all of the penalties assessed were reasonable, and required no action on my part. But a certain percentage were obviously retributive is nature, and I would always toss them, because the last thing I wanted is to reward the bad behavior of our front line employees. Every time I reduced or erased a penalty, I took heat for doing so.
The point of this, is of course, is that the average citizen is pretty much screwed if they run into a TSA operative with an attitude. The chance of getting someone higher in the chain to be objective is very slim.
LOL, do you really think anyone in TSA gives a flying F about customer service?
And this is the real problem with government. Most of the time, it's about protecting one's own and justifying the job. At some point the revenue from fines gets so high that there is pressure to increase fines even more.
I am aware of one agency that would always allege that the violator did/didn't do the worst possible thing with the hope (and intent) that the violator would admit a lesser violation and therefore justify a fine. (For example, if the "rules" said you had to keep a log of your actions, they would charge that you didn't take a required action. If you responded that you did, in fact, take the action but accidentally neglected to log it, then you were fined for failing to keep a log. No matter that every event before and after were logged....). Oh, and that same agency had field enforcement personnel that would get into contests about how many violations they could each find on a given job.
I see a lot of the same crap with the TSA.