|
How does this sound?
You also expressed alarm over the fact that the TSA SOP has been reposted on websites not under Government control. In your letter you revealed your eagerness to punish those that dared to post NON-secret information. As I am sure you are aware SSI stands for SENSITIVE Security Information. Instead of wishing to inappropriately punish those that exposed this breach in TSA policy, you should be thanking them. That SOP was online for nine months before being found by accident. How many times do you think the terrorist organizations, and the countries that sponsor them, have scoured Government websites for errors such as this. Unlike the terrorists and the covert operations agents of rogue Governments, the citizens that discovered this leak brought attention to the public and to Government officials such as yourself. |
Good.
|
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12964275)
How does this sound?
Peter King is a total jerk. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 12964299)
I would suggest some kind of statement that no clearances are required to have access to information that is SSI.
Peter King is a total jerk. |
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
(Post 12964219)
As I am sure you are aware SSI stands for SENSITIVE Security Information and in no way is either confidential, secret or top secret, any of which would indeed compromise national security. This poorly redacted document was the standard operating procedure for a member of TSA management and in no way disclosed the SOP for screeners. This leaves the SOP for screeners still in the uncompromised state it was in prior to the discovery of the poorly redacted SOP for TSA supervisors.
The SSI designation for TSA documents skirted the requirements for classified documentation. It also allowed people who would not normally qualify for a security clearance to have daily access to the SSI documents in order to do their jobs. The SSI label required no stringent background investigation as would normally be the case to access classified documents. The SSI label, while being approved by Congress, bypasses the measures normal classified document requirements. Something like that? |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12964319)
I like it, can one of you guys hunt up a verifiable source for the turnover rate?
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/people/attrition.shtm This from USA Today: One in five screeners left between Oct. 1, 2006, and Sept. 30, 2007, federal Office of Personnel Management figures show. The turnover rate was identical the year before. Attrition for the rest of the federal government was 8% in 2006-07. "Twenty percent (turnover) is pretty high," former Homeland Security Department inspector general Clark Ervin says. "You want people who are as sharp and experienced as possible, and that's why it's a concern." |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12964319)
I like it, can one of you guys hunt up a verifiable source for the turnover rate?
http://current.newsweek.com/budgettr...over_high.html http://afge-tsa.blogspot.com/2008/06...to-launch.html http://www.afge.org/Documents/200806TSAActionReport.pdf |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 12964340)
Give me about 10 minutes and I'll PM you some suggested changes. FYI, if you're not in King's district, this will go in the circular file anyway. Check House.Gov under the Homeland Security committee and, perhaps, your guy/lady might be on the committee.
|
Ok what am I missing? I am open to rewrites and corrections.
Dear Rep. Pete King, Today you published a letter written to Janet Napolitano in which you expressed alarm that the "specific procedures for calibrating magnetometers" was released in the poorly redacted TSA SOP. That procedure is widely known as any internet search will reveal. In fact the Department of Justice has an in depth document describing the details of that procedure. The DOJ hosted document also includes mechanical drawings and specifications for test objects. You can find the in depth DOJ document at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/193510.pdf You also expressed alarm over the fact that the TSA SOP has been reposted on websites not under Government control. In your letter you revealed your eagerness to punish those that dared to post NON-secret information. As I am sure you are aware SSI stands for SENSITIVE Security Information. This SOP and the much more sensitive Screening Checkpoint and Checked Baggage Screening SOPs are entrusted to entry level, low paid, TSOs with no security clearance. With the TSA workforce turnover rate hovering around 20% a more likely scenario for a terrorist organization to use to discover SSI is the simple bribery of a disgruntled screener. Instead of wishing to inappropriately punish those that exposed this breach in TSA policy, you should be thanking them. That SOP was online for nine months before being found by accident. How many times do you think the terrorist organizations, and the countries that sponsor them, have scoured Government websites for errors such as this. Unlike the terrorists and the covert operations agents of rogue Governments, the citizens that discovered this leak brought attention to the public and to Government officials such as yourself. |
In your letter you revealed your eagerness to punish those that dared to post NON-secret information. A kneejerk response to this would result in a miscarraige of justice. Reform and oversight of the DHS/TSA operation is in order because of this and many other issues recently brought to light.
|
I would add, after the definition of SSI: "That is why the official press release, from the DHS, said that this was "unclassified" material."
|
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 12964460)
Ok what am I missing? I am open to rewrites and corrections.
The salutation should read: Dear Representative King |
"That procedure is widely known as any internet search will reveal. In fact the Department of Justice has an in depth document describing the details of that procedure. The DOJ hosted document also includes mechanical drawings and specifications for test objects."
When the Hon. Rep. is finished having his fit, you might point out that the DOJ document is released under the name of John Ashcroft, a man not known for favoring lax security or palling around with terrorists. :D "You can find the in depth DOJ document at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/193510.pdf" That is an amazing doc. I love the drawings of the fake guns and knives. Plus fake watch, belt buckle, and eyeglasses. ^ |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 12964508)
A minor adjustment:
The salutation should read: Dear Representative King TK and all - good job with the letter. Go get 'em. ;) |
Ok here is the full letter, please proof it.
Dear Representative King, Today you published a letter written to Janet Napolitano in which you expressed alarm that the "specific procedures for calibrating magnetometers" was released in the poorly redacted TSA SOP. That procedure is widely known as any internet search will reveal. In fact the Department of Justice has an in depth document describing the details of that procedure. The DOJ hosted document also includes mechanical drawings and specifications for test objects. You can find the in depth DOJ document at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/193510.pdf You also expressed alarm over the fact that the TSA SOP has been reposted on websites not under Government control. In your letter you revealed your eagerness to punish those that dared to post NON-secret, UNclassified information. A knee-jerk response to this would result in a miscarriage of justice. Reform and oversight of the DHS/TSA operation is in order because of this and many other issues recently brought to light. This SOP and the much more sensitive Screening Checkpoint and Checked Baggage Screening SOPs are entrusted to entry level, low paid, TSOs with no security clearance. With the TSA workforce turnover rate hovering around 20% a more likely scenario for a terrorist organization to use to discover SSI is the simple bribery of a disgruntled screener. Instead of wishing to inappropriately punish those that exposed this breach in TSA policy, you should be thanking them. That SOP was online for nine months before being found by accident. How many times do you think the terrorist organizations, and the countries that sponsor them, have scoured U.S. Government websites for errors such as this. Unlike the terrorists and the covert operations agents of rogue Governments, the citizens that discovered this leak brought attention to the public and to Government officials such as yourself, affording the TSA the opportunity to plug the security holes it created . Those that you are trying to demonize are not against airport security, in fact the person that discovered this document revealed it on a forum for FREQUENT flyers. These are the very people that interact with the TSA on a daily basis. These are the citizens that want real security, not the dog and pony show that the TSA has provided to date. There are far more serious security hazards created by TSA policy than this inadvertent leak of non-secret, unclassified information, such as the fact that the screeners are not screened before, during or after their shifts. The fact that luggage is not secured from molestation by TSA or airline employees, making it very easy to plant a bomb. If you can take something you can plant something. The fact that forced ID verification at the checkpoint is useless and those resources should be placed looking for weapons, explosives and incendiaries. I realize that you get a pass on selectee screening as a perquisite of your position and may not be able to fully grasp what happens to your constituents at the TSA checkpoint, so I invite you to fly several times without the benefit of your Congressional identification. I trust that once you take me up on my challenge you will be appalled at the gaping holes in security caused by the TSA that are not related to this latest faux pas. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:16 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.