SOP discussion
Dec 9, 2009, 4:17 pm
#376
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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.
Originally Posted by ND Sol
It looks like the backtracking has begun. From the TSA.gov website as an official statement released today:
That statement would appear to contradict Blogger Bob's quote from yesterday:
So now it would appear that the TSA is indirectly admitting that this was an official SOP. Blogger Bob's statement was either not true or, at best, misleading.
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.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recognizes an outdated, unclassified version of a Standard Operating Procedures document was improperly posted by the agency to the Federal Business Opportunities Web site wherein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]
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 4:25 pm
#377
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Half the distance to EWR than PHL.
Programs: UA, AA, B6, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG, SPG
Posts: 11,695
And after Stewart/Cobert are done filming their show for the night so they can't make fun of it. I wonder if the network news people will pick up on this before their broadcasts in a few minutes.
Dec 9, 2009, 4:39 pm
#378
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 4:53 pm
#379
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
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.
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.
Last edited by sbm12; Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Dec 9, 2009, 5:22 pm
#381
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 5:29 pm
#384
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 5:39 pm
#385
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Apparently their damage control meeting prior to the hearings ran long and there was traffic. The session actually started late and not everyone who was supposed to be there showed up. Strange, to say the least.
Dec 9, 2009, 6:36 pm
#386
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 298
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
#387
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,795
Apparently their damage control meeting prior to the hearings ran long and there was traffic. The session actually started late and not everyone who was supposed to be there showed up. Strange, to say the least.
(Where's that penalty box, goalie?
)
Dec 9, 2009, 7:19 pm
#388
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,722
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 7:31 pm
#389
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
Dec 9, 2009, 7:31 pm
#390
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
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.