Community
Wiki Posts
Search

SOP discussion

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 8, 2009, 10:08 am
  #211  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by pmocek
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.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 10:39 am
  #212  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Blogger Bob Would like to stem the tide of speculation about TSAs security loopholes. You'll need a BIGGER thumb....

Well, Good Luck, Bob, and "May you live in interesting times"
(translation of an ancient Chinese curse).
IslandBased is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 10:46 am
  #213  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Originally Posted by ND Sol
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.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 10:50 am
  #214  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 11:01 am
  #215  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Originally Posted by ND Sol
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

Last edited by sbm12; Dec 8, 2009 at 11:10 am Reason: typo and added link
sbm12 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 11:35 am
  #216  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
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."
N965VJ is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 11:57 am
  #217  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,130
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 12:23 pm
  #218  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by sbm12
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.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 12:52 pm
  #219  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
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.

Last edited by sbm12; Dec 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm
sbm12 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 2:35 pm
  #220  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FLL
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by N965VJ
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.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 2:45 pm
  #221  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,953
"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.
Spiff is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 2:55 pm
  #222  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Originally Posted by Spiff
"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.


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.

Last edited by IslandBased; Dec 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm Reason: ?
IslandBased is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 2:57 pm
  #223  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Originally Posted by sbm12
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.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 3:00 pm
  #224  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
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.
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Dec 8, 2009, 3:12 pm
  #225  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,130
Originally Posted by sbm12
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!
Boggie Dog is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.