So what do you do with liquids you find in a carry-on? Confiscate them?





Did you read the article? They were expected to know it was drugs.

Two security screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport were charged with official misconduct today, after officials said a surveillance video captured them throwing a bag of marijuana they had found on the terminal floor into the trash.

A spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration said the pair should have turned the drugs over to law enforcement authorities.

Gee, another English teacher. Joy. :rolleyes:

You said:
My response was to that statement. Not at you specifically. Were you looking for a reason to take offense? :confused:

Thanks, but this is an informal forum, not an English class, not a thesis, not even a news paper. If I err in punctuation or spelling no one is affected by it, and no one really cares. No one that is except those who are looking to assign fault to a specific individual, or when one cannot argue from a rational position and therefore must resort to nit picking and non-rational argument to bolster their own flagging ego’s. It’s the same when people reference Nazi Germany when trying to make some inane point. It’s the reason for Godwin’s Law, to show just how far down the evolutionary chain (how far from a rational response) one must go to make their point.

Them?

No, I work for my family, for my community, and for my country. I also work for myself, but of the bunch that is the least.

I am “employed” by the TSA.

Godwin's "law" is one of the stupidest postulations ever made.

Given an infinite amount of time, a conversation will approach any and all topics, not just Nazis.

People often cite this stupid "law" because they don't like to see the word "Nazi". Pity they make such a citation without understanding the (lack of) math behind it. :rolleyes:

Punctuation-wise, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Your inability of knowing the laws (your incorrect $10k comment), your inability to simply read an article and the simple circumstances of it (Newark TSAer reprimands), and your attitude in general gives every TSAer a bad name.

Seriously.

Can I start nit-picking the spelling and use of punctuation now? Should I? :rolleyes:

I always know what I am talking about. The difference is that I don’t spin other people’s statements out of context looking to find fault with their comments. If they are wrong then I say that they are wrong. If they are right I have even been known to acknowledge it. I may be one of the few here that can honestly claim that. @:-)

“Patrol” as in? Patrol as in Police type of patrol? We are not police, therefore we cannot conduct a “patrol”. I am not allowed to comment as to why they are doing this, but I can say it’s nothing illegal.

Answer the question. :td:

“Master”, by who’s standards? Yours? Spiff’s? AM’s? TK’s? Perhaps the standard of some congressional staffer looking for a promotion? Or maybe some passenger in a position of access who needs to get back at the TSA for some perceived slight?

HAHAHAAHHA, that’s rich. Our xrays are updated all the time. It’s a bone of contention between the back office staff and the checkpoint staff at my airport. They come down the concourse at what is usually the busiest time of the day and want to take xrays out of service for “updates”.

Maybe you should give up your “credentials” and join the TSA. It might give you a bit of a clue. At the very least it would give you a bit of perspective. @:-)

It might help you if you had a clue about what they were doing. I’m not allowed to give you that clue, SSI being SSI and all, but at the very least you could try admitting that you have no idea what it is they were doing and leave it at that. Otherwise you just make yourself look … (I hate to use this word so often, but it’s the most appropriate to the situation most of the time) ignorant. :td:

Uninformed opinion. I’d use that other word again but I’m trying to cut down.

Cute, childish, but cute.

Ever seen the details of the government procurement process? I can’t imagine that you have, otherwise you would not have made such an … ignorant (again, I can’t avoid it) … statement.

Why? You have the only answer you will accept, spinning like a top as it is. Its more fun for me to watch you and others stand around and spin it harder and harder. Maybe if you spin it hard enough you can find another answer that suits your preferences even more.

Ron, your replies defy logic. The contradictions and illogical points you make on this board reaffirms the embarrassment and bad name you give your brethren at the TSA.

You mean like:

,
You are a laugh a minute riot!:rolleyes:

+1. Poster child for why so many people despise the TSA.

In answer to the OP’s original question:

I truly hope so. As I have stated in the past, this is the one single part of the checkpoint screening that causes the most problems. In part I have to say that the TSA failed to communicate the reasoning for this requirement in the most appropriate manner. There are many things they could have done to explain to the public why this is required, yet they took the path that they have an it has turned out to be far more of a nightmare than they had ever envisioned.

I think the leadership was under the impression that given the different liquid explosives threats that have surfaced over the last few years that the general public would have a clear understanding of the reasons behind the ban and support it. What they forgot is that government actions sometimes require that the public be educated on the subject. Obviously the TSA and its management failed in this regard.

The other part of the equation is human nature and the less lucid thinkers our society breeds. Liquid explosives are a real threat to commercial aviation, yet there are those here and on the TSA blog that prefer to ignore the facts of the situation and the threat presented. This also was in part a failing of the TSA. It is human nature to want to be “in control”. To propound their own belief’s as the only possible situation or answer, and of course to ignore or deride the facts that do not support that set of belief’s. Not everyone is subject to this, but all have this “need” as a potential in their psyche. TSA did not take this into account when developing this policy.

TSA could have done a much better job of explaining its policies and requirements. Obviously I am not the person to do it, many people are not fond of the “straight shooter” approach. All one must do is read any thread that I have posted in. But the time may have come for this policy to go the same way that the original lighter policy has. The technology is available to screen all liquids coming to the checkpoint, and once it is deployed (funding seems to be holding it back) I can see no reason for this policy to continue.

When you take comments out of context I'm sure you could feel that way. I prefer honesty, and that means the whole truth. When you can catch up with that ideal please let me know.

BS. There are no binary liquid explosives whose components are not already explosive and/or detectable by ETP/ETD. When lies are told, the public reacts negatively.

IMHO, Ron, you're not a straight shooter. However, I think that is largely because you're not allowed to be a straight shooter. From my seat here, it looks like you duck a lot of direct questions, because you've been told that answering those questions would reveal SSI and put your job in jeopardy. Of course, there's no way for any objective observer to judge that.

IMHO, the issue isn't funding, but choices on how to spend funding. There seems to be plenty of money for TSA to buy new uniforms, new public service announcements, new posters, new AIT machines of various forms, and so on. The Powers That Be are choosing to spend their funds on those efforts rather than on liquid screening technology.

Even Patton had him limits, yet he was still a straight shooter.

Maybe. There has to be a priority list somewhere, and neither of us gets any input into it. :cool:

Do you agree with TSA's current priorities? Do you think it should spend its efforts on different things?

You are free to attempt to explain what "context" makes your statements I posted correct. A "straight-shooter" like yourself should be eager to do just that.

Then you can answer my latest question. What do you do when you discover liquids larger than 3oz in a person's carry-on?

Come on, Mr. Straight Shooter, answer a simple question.....

I'm not sure. I see some of the efforts and priorities and do not see not others. It’s a complicated issue, and my ego is not big enough for me to say that I understand it all. No one here can say that they see more, and most see a great deal less.

I think AIT is needed, sooner rather than later. I believe that new liquid screening technology is sorely needed (Only because TSO's get the sharp end of that stick). I believe that we do not do enough in the intel arena, but I'm not sure. I also believe that we don’t get paid enough for the job that we do (who dosen’t believe this for their job?).

We do quite a bit of training, but more is needed. And not recurring training but threat specific training. The more specific the better. I know that the TSA’s lines of communication could be a lot better than it is, specially considering the level of today’s technology.

13

Not the answer you were expecting? That’s because I smell fish here.

Its 3.4 ounces or larger. And I offer the passenger options.

1. Abandon it here and the TSA will deal with it.
2. I will deny the item access to the sterile area and escort the item and the passenger out of the sterile area and the checkpoint and ask the passenger to do with it as they will.

All of that is assuming that your theoretical liquid is not an inherent hazard to the airport or an illegal substance. If it is either then the issue becomes complicated.

Happy now? Is that your last question? Will you please put me on your ignore list now?