I can understand being frustrated over that type of situation and it should not occur. I can only say that continued reporting will begin to take effect. If a certain airport gets 20 "bad" comment cards/emails/phone calls a year and an airport with the same passenger load and TSO count gets 450 "bad" a year, someone in HQ will notice that at some point. I still say to follow through, sometimes it may take awhile to get things moving, but I actually have faith that things will move at some point.

I only have experience in dealing with comments and such here, and know that they are actually addressed fairly consistently (based on vacations, etc, there may be a small lapse from time to time, but we are pretty consistent). I know that they contact people back from our airport (from what I have seen) on good and bad. I wish I could say it would happen for you everytime you put a card in, but that is outside my purview.

I'm terribly confused then, for years and years (up until January this year) the front page of the TSA web site showed how many people were arrested for suspicious behavior that week. Which law is that under USC or CFR or any state that you can be arrested for "suspicious behavior"?

Sort of like your brethren screener in Milwaukee (MKE) who told someone with a Kippy baggie that she disagreed with that 1st amendment of the Constitution does not apply to the checkpoint?

But at least your brethren screener Alvin Crabtree did verify that at least the 2nd amendment is applicable. Now if only other screeners can realize that seizing items from unlocked bags and selling them on eBay is not allowed under the 4th amendment.

Heh heh, been paying taxes since I got my workers permit at 14.:D

We may have actually discovered the first thing we agree with, and we have not even had a beer yet.;)

Nah, those official spokespersons are much better schooled in socially acceptable speech patterns than I am. I still cling to the fact that ain't is actually a word, and Ya'll can be used as singular, plural and mass amount with equal aplomb. I also don't do very well in front of crowds and cameras.

Suspicious behavior can be a cover-all for some agencies to include several misdemeanor activities (to save on space). I am NOT saying that this is necessarily the case for TSA, but it could be.

The first amendment applies everywhere unless detailed specifically by the laws of our nation. You are entitled to speak your mind wherever you go in our borders, if the TSO actually said that, they were wrong.

Any TSO (or TSA employee) caught stealing anything from anywhere (regardless of whether they sell it on Ebay or keep it at home), should be prosecuted under the local laws, period.

I am quite certain that we would agree on many things, we would just have to find the common ground to work from, and beer makes many people agree on many things! Have you tried the Sam Adams Double Bock yet? It took me back to my days in Germany! If you are ever here, let me know and maybe we can find a place for a beer and agree on more things.

Good to hear you feel that way. Too bad the US Department of Justice felt differently and directed the State of Texas to drop charges against a DAL TSA supervisor assaulting a screener. Is that the "equal under law" the TSA has in mind?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.427ee4f.html

Oh and perhaps you forgot to comment on Alvin Crabtree still working at DEN after violating a sundry of TSA & state of Colorado laws.

I believe exactly what I stated earlier, anyone that steals should be prosecuted the same as anyone else. I don't know the background on that particular case for the DAL STSO, however if the STSO assaulted the TSO, then there should have been charges (unless the TSO refused to press charges). I refuse to speak on Alvin because I am woefully ignorant on the full situation. I tend to not speak on things (unless it is hypothetical) unless I have all sides and statements to cull from. I find that it makes me sound much smarter and keeps me from inserting my foot in my mouth (which I need absolutely no help with according to the woman).

Glad you feel that way. Such a sad situation that federal security directors do not feel the same.

As I said, how supervisors behave with passengers is always a good indicator of what will get done with complaints.

Nothing wrong with those words, and there ain't nothing wrong with "ustacould", "fixinto", and "gitonouttahere".

Let's make it clear, he may lose his vote, and you may lose your life if passengers aren't screened properly!
You seem very complexed about something! What's up mate?!

(sorry wouldn't usualy give such a sharp response, but with the tone this bloke is using, I'd consider it quite moderate)

You are absolutely correct, I may lose my life if people are not PROPERLY screened. The WBI is NOT a good way to properly screen anyone. The WBI would not have caught the Undie-bomber and neither would a standard pat-down, but a K-9 would have.

Take a trip to my blog where I list 4 ways to beat the Nude-O-Scope. If I can easily beat the system, the terrorists can beat the system.

But what has "complexed" me is the fact that Lieberman or any other "leader" would push such an invasion in privacy when the costs are high and the benefits are negligible.

Oh yes, if we don't have these intrusive means, many thousands more people will die! :rolleyes: Let's not even consider the 700 million people that flew in/to/from the US a year and how many of them died from terror attacks. More people die from pilot error and mechanical failure than have ever died in planes from terrorist attacks.

The sky's not falling. Whether these things are implemented or not, I'm in greater danger of dying on the way to my friend's house in a few minutes to watch a football game than I am if I were to get on a plane.

There are less intrusive ways of screening. TSA just doesn't want to do it. There are a lot of things that TSA should be doing that they're not - screening workers and screeners regularly, screening cargo, securing baggage, etc. Screeeners can't even find stuff now with the technology that they do have capable of finding items (like the immense failure of EWR screening - and even with advanced warning). Let's focus on those areas that already have gaping holes before going into a panic and fixing something that's already reasonably secure.

there's an easy explanation. No one in a position of authority wants to be accused of being soft on terrorism. Thus, when the "experts" say "our problems will be solved if we buy 1000 nude-o-scopes" and there are no voices in opposition to the "experts" - because the press are spineless weenies - the "leaders" follow the advice of the "experts."

Disgusting, but that's the way it is.

No, they should be charged and prosecuted under federal law.

That's the way it is. Welcome to politics in the age of the spineless. A real leader will tell the public what it doesn't want to hear. Chill out and take a breather since terrorism has been, is and will remain a public, ugly nuisance and we'll have to expect to live with the risks of it like we do with road accidents. The best bomb makers are still going to be able to sneak explosives by whatever security measures are put in place. There's no getting around that absent an impossible, totalitarian police state. Expect mitigation of the risk but don't expect it to ever be eliminated.

You forgot "Youauntoo" and "Aight".

True, depending on location that is true.

I think the goal should be no ability for the terrorists (or some other loony) to be able to do damage to the people aboard a flight or in the airport. I admit that is something that will probably never be acheived for one simple reason - people adapt. We all do it in some forms throughout our lives, we adapt to what life throws at us and we keep moving forward. The problem we have here is the balance between what is acceptable to the public and what the threats are. There are several people that want more stringent protocols for security (you know, the FBPD with the full monty, WBI, open every bag and rifle through it and test it, and anything else they can think of to keep stuff out of the planes), and the other group that wants basic protocols (xray of the bags, test what looks like it could be a threat and pat down only as an alternative to the WTMD). I would venture that most of the American public is somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum. The trick is to find the best ways to prevent the threats, while keeping in line with what the country feels is socially acceptable levels of security. My idea of security would make most of you pull your hair out (but then again, I worked at a Nuclear weapons storage facility so what do I know?:D). I have a cousin that thinks we should just issue everyone on the plane a gun with 3 bullets in them and let it go from there. I have a friend that thinks we should just xray the bags and do the WTMD (with a handwand if there is an alarm) and call it even - no ETD or anything. I hope that moving forward, we as an agency cn find the ability to prevent as many opportunities for loonies to do damage with a good balance of security and inconvienience (corr, sp? my eyes are loopy tonite). I love the Israeli security system, because of the tiered effect, you are processed through in steps, each one more stringent than the last, all the while being scrutinized for errant behaviors. Will the Israeli model work here? I am not so certain that people would accept it here, it is by nature much more intense than ours here. I just hope we can find a good balance and do the best job of prevention that we can, with what we are given.:)

Welcome to Flyertalk. :)

In my view, the TSA and its employees are the real al Qaeda assistants, having helped that organization achieve its goals ever since the TSA was formed. They don't call it Terrorist Support Agency for nothing, you know.

Simply put, that goal is impossible to achieve. Any terrorist organization, given enough time, money, and people, can do damage to any particular flight or airport. Even I, with very little training, can come up with unbeatable scenarios.

It's the same way with my car. Yes, I've got a security system on it. That won't stop someone from stealing it if they're determined enough. Heck, all they've got to do is get a tow truck and they can steal the whole thing. But since most thieves don't have tow trucks, all I'm trying to do is discourage the guy who wants to break into my car enough so that he decides that the risk of detection isn't worth the effort.

That's what airline security should be trying to achieve. Absolute security is a myth. The question really should be: what levels of security are possible, at what cost (both in terms of restriction of liberties as well as money spent)? And then we can have a rational discussion as to whether the benefits of a given level of security justify the cost --- and reasonable people can hold different positions on those questions.

I like to think in a different way, the goal should always be every flight safe from beginning to end, period. Whether that is acheivable or not is not a factor. It is about trying to do the best job possible and always looking to improve what you have for the next evolution of the nefarious intenders (or loonies, whichever you want to call them). I realize that from time to time, something is going to slip through, it is simply the law of averages catching up to us, and the determination of those with bad intentions finding a seam and exploiting it. Just because you can't have something, does not mean that it isn't what you should strive for, that is what drives new technology and procedures. I always want to be one step ahead of the bad guys in new procedures and tech regardless of whether we actually are or not (and if we are not, working to get to the point that we are). I guess that is just how I tend to look at things, always work on doing what you are supposed to well, and then finding the next step in the learning curve before the loonies find it.

Agree wholeheartedly^^^

The "loonies" are far ahead of the TSA on the learning curve - which is why TSA reacts rather than acts.

Obviously you get your "information" from the Communist Party spokesholes at TSA. :rolleyes:

You seem to be interested in some fine Florida "beachfront" property or a nice bridge between the Brooklyn and Manhattan boroughs of New York. May I send you a brochure?

Welcome to FlyerTalk.

You're absolutely correct but, unfortunately, the nature of the 24 hour news cycle makes it extremely difficult to tell the truth these days without being beaten over the head with it. There is always some unscrupulous politician from the other side willing and eager to tell the public something they'd rather hear.

With all due respect (and I do respect you), you don't really mean that. Because there are limits in how far you, and I, are willing to go in the name of security.

I've used the example of "Con Air" before, half facetiously, but I think it's a valid point of comparison. We could improve the security of U.S. air travel immensely by applying handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains to all passengers. Such a system would've stopped the 9/11 hijackers and the Underwear Bomber, and depending on how the chains were applied, might've stopped the Shoe Bomber as well.

Now clearly my suggestion is ridiculous; it's completely socially unacceptable to treat common commercial travelers as convicted felons. But that shows that when we talk about doing, in your words, the "best job possible", there are limits to what we'll consider. And those limits will, inherently, create security vulnerabilities which cannot be closed.

TSA employees are federal workers enforcing federal rules. Any wrong doing should be adjudicated in the federal courts.

Besides in federal prison a person serves the full sentence.

Just as with drugs, we dont go looking for cash. But if we find it and it appears to be more than $10,000 we are required to contact a supervisor.

And your brethren screener in STL could not count higher than $4700 in cash/checks and therefore thought it was >$10k? Or was this back when the TSA thought it was illegal to have >$10k as it was "contraband"?

There are specific directions for specific things. If we find something we suspect to be kiddie porn we are required to report it. If we find something we suspect are drugs we are required to report it. There is no way for us to determine of the content of a DVD is illegal or not in a bag search environment.

Why?

No. We don’t “keep an eye out” for anything but what we are specifically looking for. Its usually quite a surprise for us to find one of these other things, and its not something we enjoy finding. It tends to soak up the remainder of our day doing useless paperwork and answering questions from people we would rather not talk to.

Not necessarily. Depends on what we find. I cant get into specifics but there are a range of options we have depending on what we run across.

Only for those who have already decided that this is what is happening.

Several of us made that quite clear here, but for some reason we are not given credit for our statements and it continues to be brought up at every possible opportunity.

Stroud screwed up, I said that when the I first read about the incident. I continue to say it today. Get over it and move on.

I absolutely love it when someone tries putting words in my mouth.

For me to “see something in someone’s bag” I have to have opened it. To have opened it there must have been a reason. The reasons for opening a bag DO NOT include suspicion of the presence of drugs, large amounts of cash, or kiddie porn. The finding of those items is incidental to the actual search and the reasons for it.

OK, clear now?

So cash is as "illegal" as drugs in the US :confused:

Prosecute someone in a federal court for a case of simple theft?

Should we shoot those who J-Walk? :rolleyes:

I thought that was legal under US law. But if someone abuses their position of trust as a Federal employee then surely they should be prosecuted under Federal law

"Why ask why? Bud Dry!"

BD, I dont have an answer for that one. Not sure I want an answer. I know what the legallities of moving large amounts of cash are but not why its a concern.

Delay and call a supervisor for further interrogation for carrying legal US tender? :rolleyes:

Ok. So, let me try and rephrase to see if I understand you correctly.

You have a list of items which, if you happen to discover them in the context of a legal administrative search for WEI, you are required to report to a supervisor. This list includes drugs and child pornography, but does not include possible violations of copyright law. Is this correct?

If so ... somewhere along the way, someone has made the determination that some potential violations of federal law are worth pursuing at a checkpoint, while others are not. Clearly it's not your decision to make. But the fact that you're not seeking any violation of any federal law in the context of your search creates an interesting question: how did the powers that be decide what to look for and what not to look for? That decision is what, in my completely uninformed and probably idiotic opinion, makes it look like TSA is searching for drugs and such.

(And I'm not sure I buy the "we can't determine the legality of a DVD in a bag search environment" argument. Unless you've got a chemical laboratory hanging out at the checkpoint, there's no way for a LEO to determine whether a large bag of white powder is, or isn't, a legal substance. Heck, if you find suspected child pornography, there's no way for a LEO on the spot to determine whether or not the individuals depicted were of legal age.)

Practical question. If I present a random bag to you as the X-ray operator, how hard is it for you find an arbitrary yet legal reason to call for a hand search? I'm thinking of the parallel situation in law enforcement where a patrol officer who suspects greater wrongdoing can pull over a driver for a relatively minor offense (broken taillight, rolling stop at a stop sign, etc.), and use that as a pretense to conduct the "real" search.

In short: how easy would it be for a TSO to find a perfectly legal reason to call for a secondary search, if they suspected that there was a secondary item (e.g. drugs) that could be found?

I seem to recall that the directive to refer large quantities of cash was supposedly changed recently ... at least, I read it here, so it must be true, right? :) Have your instructions changed in this regard?