|
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
Originally Posted by ND Sol
It looks like the backtracking has begun. From the TSA.gov website as an official statement released today:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recognizes an outdated, unclassified version of a Standard Operating Procedures document was improperly posted by the agency to the Federal Business Opportunities Web site wherein redacted information was not properly protected. Once we were made aware, it was immediately taken down from the Web site and a full review by TSA’s Office of Inspection was initiated. This version of the document was not the everyday screening manual used by Transportation Security Officers at airport checkpoints. As TSA is constantly adapting to address evolving threats, there have been six newer versions of the procedures since the version posted was approved. [emphasis added] The version of the document that was posted was neither implemented nor issued to the workforce. I guess when the TSA realized that a FOIA request had been fulfilled with this exact same SOP and that the RFP used this as an SOP, the ruse of still claiming it was never implemented became a bigger problem than admitting it was in effect at one time. But for those two issues, the TSA might still be saying that it was never in effect. :td: |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 12957209)
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
Oldest trick in the book: Issue a bad news press release after Washington has gone home for the night. |
They say it is an "outdated, unclassified" version. This is the worst of bureucratic misrepresentation.
Do they mean "because it is outdated it is no longer restricted from distribution?" NO, if you requested the prior version under the FOIA, unredacted, they would refuse. Do they mean "because it was unclassified it was open to public distribution?" NO, it was supposed to be redacted and they would not provide you with a current version. So that do they mean? They mean that "SSI" (not for public distribution) is not technically "Classified" (a technical term which I believe applies to documents with far greater restrictions than SSI. In other words, they are trying to make it *sound* like it was "not a big deal" even though they would act as though release of the current manual (the exact same level of "classification") IS a big deal. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 12957205)
Here's the rub: They had officials testify in the Senate today. If those folks stated that that the version was never implemented or approved then they've got a handful of folks on the hook for Contempt of Congress. That isn't so good either. I'm trying to find a full transcript of the testimony of that session to see what was actually said.
Anyone have access to fednews.com? That seems to be the only place with transcripts online right now and it is a subscription service. Starts around minute 72. It sounds like they do not state that it was unreleased in that testimony. So they're probably off the hook for Contempt. Heyman does tell a lie, though I doubt it is intentional, as while he was testifying the document was still online though he states otherwise. |
Minor mention of ABC World News. Internal investigation, travelers not in danger, 5 people put on leave.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 12957411)
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/I2009...=1110&dur=8205
Starts around minute 72. It sounds like they do not state that it was unreleased in that testimony. So they're probably off the hook for Contempt. Heyman does tell a lie, though I doubt it is intentional, as while he was testifying the document was still online though he states otherwise. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12957535)
So where is Gale? I have not seen hide nor hair of her since this started.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 12957549)
Administrative leave? :D
|
TSA Statement on Posting of Operations Document News & Happenings December 9, 2009 The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recognizes an outdated, unclassified version of a Standard Operating Procedures document was improperly posted by the agency to the Federal Business Opportunities Web site wherein redacted information was not properly protected. Once we were made aware, it was immediately taken down from the Web site and a full review by TSA’s Office of Inspection was initiated. This version of the document was not the everyday screening manual used by Transportation Security Officers at airport checkpoints. As TSA is constantly adapting to address evolving threats, there have been six newer versions of the procedures since the version posted was approved. Thorough post-incident analysis has determined that our systems are secure and that screening protocols have not been compromised. TSA is confident that screening procedures in place remain strong and the many layers of security keep the traveling public safe. TSA takes full responsibility for this improper posting and all individuals who may have been involved have been placed on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the review. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12957535)
So where is Gale? I have not seen hide nor hair of her since this started.
|
It's in the German press now...
So it seems to spread. Slowly but I guess this will go on for a little while.
Interesting to see how it expands. The TSA seems to be a bit ambivalent about one the one hand trying to play it down and then on the other hand trying to accept some guilt. So sort of a "it's not all that important but we crucified 5 people anyways" approach... Frankly, I couldn't care less what they do if they would just drop the discrimination against people based on nationality, drop the war on water, be a bit more friendly at the checkpoints, stop being the big bullies and just do their jobs like all of the rest of us do. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 12957658)
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12957535)
So where is Gale? I have not seen hide nor hair of her since this started.
(Where's that penalty box, goalie? ;)) |
So let me get this straight - the TSA demanded that an outdated, unclassified version of its SOP manual be removed from websites - yeah right. In this case, as in most, speak louder than words.
And yes they could definitely take a page from the secret service. However, the difference there is that that SS is covering up for the white house staffer who signed off on the salihis (as they did for clinton during monicagate). Whereas the TSA is simply denying its own ineptitude. |
Originally Posted by Sebastian_R
(Post 12958014)
So it seems to spread. Slowly but I guess this will go on for a little while.
Interesting to see how it expands. The TSA seems to be a bit ambivalent about one the one hand trying to play it down and then on the other hand trying to accept some guilt. So sort of a "it's not all that important but we crucified 5 people anyways" approach... Frankly, I couldn't care less what they do if they would just drop the discrimination against people based on nationality, drop the war on water, be a bit more friendly at the checkpoints, stop being the big bullies and just do their jobs like all of the rest of us do. |
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 12958248)
So let me get this straight - the TSA demanded that an outdated, unclassified version of its SOP manual be removed from websites - yeah right. In this case, as in most, speak louder than words.
And yes they could definitely take a page from the secret service. However, the difference there is that that SS is covering up for the white house staffer who signed off on the salihis (as they did for clinton during monicagate). Whereas the TSA is simply denying its own ineptitude. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:36 am. |
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.