The TSA tells us to take our shoes off.

The TSA tells us how much liquid we can bring.

The TSA include videos on its website showing what passengers can expect during the screening process.

The TSA even talks about AIT and explains how it works with the "secret room" and everything.

All of this is on the website. So why is it okay to explain all of this stuff to passengers but not the "enhanced pat down"? Do they really think they're providing more security by leaving that part out while explaining all the other procedures?

TSA does not tell the public how revealing the Strip Search Machine is.

TSA does not tell the public just how invasive a Pat Down can be.

It's kinda like saying it's cocktail hour somewhere.

As has been evidenced by the simple facts that the AIT can't detect the one threat used to leverage its installation and that travelers regularly pass through checkpoints with things like loaded guns, the TSA obviously doesn't think security has anything to do with the decision. The illusion of security is all they're supposed to provide.

If the SOP were detailed for the passengers, and the TSA package handlers deviated from the procedure, people would point out the violations.

Nothing in writing == nothing for the passenger to point out as "that's wrong."

It's simple CY6 behavior, nothing to do with security at all.

Somewhat OT, but I would like to point out one essential difference.

Yes, driving is a privilege, but there are clearly spelled out rules as to what one has to do to earn this privilege: demonstrate certain level of knowledge and competence. The rules also spell out under what circumstances this privilege can be taken away. A police officer (or anyone else) is not legally pemitted to just come up to any of us and say: "Do as I tell you or I will take away your DL". In essence, this is exactly what TSA is doing with our flying "privilege".

You left out the most important difference.

We are not asking to drive the plane, just for a seat in back.

I'd suggest the driver analogy is a little off target. Shouldn't it be more like: "Do as I tell you or I will take away your right to ride as a passenger in a private automobile."

You are right the analogy would be better as a passenger, but the point I was going for is that for some flying is a necessary mode of travel in their lives. How would the American public react if they had to go through TSA style security for riding in their cars.

GSOLTSO mentioned that if he saw anything out of SOP being violated he would want the offending TSO prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I commend him for that I just wish I had the ability to do the same.

^

From your lips to God's ears.

But it doesn't change the fact that you have a major laziness or dishonesty factor going on with front line TDCs, TSOs and STSOs. A major part of that can be directly laid at the feet of the fact that they have their little fiefdoms going on in the airport and for many of them, challenging their dubious knowledge of the SOP is tantamount to declaring war on them personally.

I noticed you have said in this thread that if a TSO violates the SOP on screenings they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In a case where a TDC, TSO or STSO lies about the NEXUS card acceptability or is too lazy to look at the SOP, what do you think should be the penalty should be for not following SOP?

(And, for the sake of the discussion, assume the TSOs and TDCs have all been trained that the NEXUS card is acceptable.)

I believe that while laziness and dishonesty are problems for the TSA package handlers, they're far from the worst issues that the TSA needs to clean up - and fast.

I will agree with you that more information to the public would help ease the transit of the checkpoints, it would also give a blue print on how to defeat the screening process - before you say anything about being able to watch the process and learn it, yes - but we do not take an active part in educating the person watching. I talk with folks that are above my paygrade all the time and voice my opinion, I also post ideas on the Idea Factory when I come across something that would help us as an organization - that is just about the best I can do internally. When I see something out of line, I correct it on the spot, and forward info to the appropriate person if follow up is needed - again, that is what I am doing internally. Externally I come on here and other sites and blogs to try and inform as many folks of what I can.

Agreed that there could be more info, but there is that putting a blueprint out for enemies thing. I do not have the best of answers for this, I have commented up the chain, but I do not see changes in the information we give to the public at this time. However, if the folks on Capitol Hill keep having testimony in open forums and asking some of the questions they do, then you guys might have more info in the future.

Are you the one that is here to give me my CIA creds? I have been waiting on them for awhile...:rolleyes:

This is not a truly apt comparison - like when I used that earlier, it is not a perfect comparison for discussion. I will start by saying I would be pretty irate - but that is a different situation for me. It would be the same if I had to go through all the same procedures if I were going to the mall or wal-mart. Again, a different comparison - because of the way things transit and the control over how they transit. So to just answer your question - I would be pretty livid.

I was promoted? Are you the person bringing my raise and promotion check? What took you so long and where have you been?

There are more legal minds at HQ than Francine, and Francine does pretty well according to what I have seen.

I'm going to back up TXagogo and PSS on this. It's a false argument to say "People don't like the groping and nude-o-scope simply because people have never liked screening of any kind." I had a senior manager once like that; he didn't act on anyone's complaints because "people will always find something to complain about."

I'm one of those who traveled quite a lot in the 80's and 90's; apart from a 90-second wait once at LHR while the security guy decided whether to allow my mammoth Swiss Army Knife through (he did*), I can't recall any issues with airport security checkpoints. I put my bag through the x-ray, I walked through the WTMD, often without interrupting my conversation with my companions, and went on my way. RadioDad traveled extensively for work throughout the 60's and 70's, and I remember many stories about delayed flights, bad weather, strange fellow passengers, but never one incident about airport security. To compare those days to the current group-and-scope (or even to the Freedom Baggie, shoes off, barking, bad attitude experience of recent years) is ridiculous.

And your claim that "people have always complained about security" doesn't square with the claims of your colleagues that most passengers appreciate what TSA does and thank you guys profusely for keeping them safe. I don't buy that story either, but they certainly can't BOTH be true. :rolleyes:

*Of course he did. He asked the guy in the next lane, who laughed and said "Mate, they make 'em bigger than that; let the lady have it back!"

This is a convenient lie for TSA HQ, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not just someone watching, but people who actually go through it can easily learn "the process".

If TSA keeps "the process" secret, the Bad Guys can figure it out by sending a few guys through to find out the range of typical experiences. (If "the process" is, accordingly the SOP, so wildly variable that they can't figure it out in a dozen patdowns, you've got other problems.)

In terms of the Bad Guys figuring out a loophole, you're no better off than just telling people what's involved. But keeping the process secret also means that individual screeners can get away with pretty much anything, since no one can challenge them against SOP. It also means TSA HQ doesn't have to impose discipline on "bad apple" screeners or deal with complaints that the SOP wasn't followed. It really is just a sorry excuse for poor training and poor supervision.

I think your example of giving the screening blueprint away is faulty.

If the actual screening process is adequate to detect threats and is performed correctly then knowing the procedure does not weaken that process.

If your secruity methods have to be hidden from others then I suggest the procedures don't work well.

Then I would suggest that you are wasting your time. Spewing the TSA line and/or attempting to justify procedures is not changing anyone's mind.

If something is not legally determined one way or the other, it is not illegal at this point either. The decisions to screen people in a ceretain way are currently the purview of the TSA under guidance from DHS which takes its guidance from the sitting administration. I understand 100% what you are saying here that it is not technically determined to be legal simply by virtue of not having been exposed to the judicial branch as of this time. However, barring a decision in the judicial branch prohibiting certain parts of the screening process - it i open for interpretation differently by all parties. I simply see it from a different angle than some of you seem to. This is something that I have indicated will be an ongoing series of adjustments for different reasons - there may well come a time where a judical decision impacts the screening process, there may not - there will be times where the process is changed by TSA and/or DHS and/or the sitting administration, but currently none of those situations has occurred.