FlyerTalk Forums
Page 15 of 43
« First
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   SOP discussion (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1024410-sop-discussion.html)

ND Sol Dec 8, 2009 10:08 am
Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 12947973)
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
So now the TSA is telling us that an RFP was sent out based on policies that never were in effect? I think that the contracting officer would have some concerns over that.

IslandBased Dec 8, 2009 10:39 am
Blogger Bob Would like to stem the tide of speculation about TSAs security loopholes. You'll need a BIGGER thumb....:rolleyes:

Well, Good Luck, Bob, and "May you live in interesting times" :D:D
(translation of an ancient Chinese curse).

sbm12 Dec 8, 2009 10:46 am
Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 12947709)
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.
The official response I have received from my contact at the TSA is that the version posted was never implemented and there have been six implemented revisions since that time. I've asked a couple follow-up questions. We'll see how far they go or if she starts to simply ignore me at some point.

GUWonder Dec 8, 2009 10:50 am
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 12947845)
PV has responded.

Problem is no one will believe it!
Everyone should doubt what the TSA smoke and mirrors machine participants claim. The TSA claims that "The version of the document that was posted was neither implemented nor issued to the workforce". That TSA claim is of course misleading.

sbm12 Dec 8, 2009 11:01 am
Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 12948104)
So now the TSA is telling us that an RFP was sent out based on policies that never were in effect? I think that the contracting officer would have some concerns over that.
This is the main crux of my latest follow-up question. I have been told that they will not be commenting on the content of the document but I'm pressing it as best I can, particularly considering that I'm relatively a no one to them even though my post has been credited with breaking the story by some of the bigger players out there.
http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2009...operation.html

N965VJ Dec 8, 2009 11:35 am
This story continues to chug away on Twitter, although the TSA Blog Team only made one Tweet so far about this (or anything else).

Also, ABCNews.com has posted this:

<SNIP> Robert MacLean, a former Federal Air Marshal who was fired for revealing holes in TSA's security after the 9/11 attacks. MacLean added that TSA's assertion that the documents posted are old holds no merit. "How much in screening procedure changes in 17 months?" asked MacLean. "It's a one-dimensional process."

Boggie Dog Dec 8, 2009 11:57 am
Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 12948353)
Everyone should doubt what the TSA smoke and mirrors machine participants claim. The TSA claims that "The version of the document that was posted was neither implemented nor issued to the workforce". That TSA claim is of course misleading.
TSA's current statement should bring into question everything else they have stated over the past months.

Trollkiller Dec 8, 2009 12:23 pm
Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 12948328)
The official response I have received from my contact at the TSA is that the version posted was never implemented and there have been six implemented revisions since that time. I've asked a couple follow-up questions. We'll see how far they go or if she starts to simply ignore me at some point.
Ask your contact if this version was never implemented, why the TSA released a portion of this document in response to a FOIA request by papersplease.org

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/wp-co...tsa_id_sop.pdf

http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/REDACTED_SOP_NO_SSI.pdf

Compare for yourself.

sbm12 Dec 8, 2009 12:52 pm
Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 12948971)
Compare for yourself.
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.

The differences are only in formatting. Bad news for the TSA.

wildcatlh Dec 8, 2009 2:35 pm
Originally Posted by N965VJ (Post 12948649)
This story continues to chug away on Twitter, although the TSA Blog Team only made one Tweet so far about this (or anything else).

Also, ABCNews.com has posted this:
Talk about dripping with hyperbole. "Massive Security Breach?" A "how-to for terrorists?" No wonder the kettles love TSA so much, when the media's continually blasting the "BE AFRAID! BE VERY VERY AFRAID!" mantra.

Spiff Dec 8, 2009 2:45 pm
"This shocking breach undercuts the public's confidence in the security procedures at our airports," said Senator Susan Collins, R-Me., ranking Republican member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Well then, Madame Senator, do the right thing and destroy this disgusting, un-American agency once and for all. :mad:

IslandBased Dec 8, 2009 2:55 pm
Originally Posted by Spiff (Post 12949869)
"This shocking breach undercuts the public's confidence in the security procedures at our airports," said Senator Susan Collins, R-Me., ranking Republican member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Well then, Madame Senator, do the right thing and destroy this disgusting, un-American agency once and for all. :mad:
:):p:D

How about "three strikes and you're unemployed" as a management incentive?

The Amish are settling in Maine, so buggy whips should be easier to get, Senator.

sbm12 Dec 8, 2009 2:57 pm
Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 12948409)
This is the main crux of my latest follow-up question. I have been told that they will not be commenting on the content of the document but I'm pressing it as best I can, particularly considering that I'm relatively a no one to them even though my post has been credited with breaking the story by some of the bigger players out there.
http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2009...operation.html
I just received another "no comment" pending further review. She did acknowledge my comment in the PV post and that "We’re looking at all of the follow up questions that we’ve received to see what we can address."

I think I might have to find my elected officials and raise some ire at that level next. Should be fun.

AngryMiller Dec 8, 2009 3:00 pm
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 12948770)
TSA's current statement should bring into question everything else they have stated over the past months.
Could it be possible that TSA routinely prevaricates, lies, tells untruths, relies on fantasy? Yep. I caught a member of TSA management lying at MSP but let it go knowing that they weren't honest even though they had nothing to either gain or lose by being honest. That says much about what little ethics they seem to possess.

Boggie Dog Dec 8, 2009 3:12 pm
Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 12949962)
I just received another "no comment" pending further review. She did acknowledge my comment in the PV post and that "We’re looking at all of the follow up questions that we’ve received to see what we can address."

I think I might have to find my elected officials and raise some ire at that level next. Should be fun.
TK's post on PV asking if the disclosed document was never official why it was the basis of a FOIA response is quiet interesting.

I would call it checkmate.

Surely some legislator can see what TSA leadership is up to!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:21 am.
Page 15 of 43
« First
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.