|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15467211)
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. The thread and article about the loaded gun getting through security is a perfect example. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 15467266)
Spewing the TSA line and/or attempting to justify procedures is not changing anyone's mind.
The new body scanners and enhanced gropings do absolutely nothing to address the simple fact that the TSA is ill-equipped to provide any level of real security. According to the Inspector General's report, few TSA package handlers have even been able to meet the bare 100 hours of mandatory training. What little training they do get is on outdated equipment using old data and ancient images. They consistently miss prohibited items, can't run simple background checks, and their behavioral pseudoscience can't even detect the pedophiles among their own ranks, let alone real terrorists in the wild. But I have no doubt whatsoever that our local TSA mouthpiece has excuses and justifications for continuing to forcefully handle other people's packages, all in the name of providing security theatre. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15462873)
I knew before posting my question what your response was likely to be.
However, your the one that told us that if SOP is violated the screener should be punished. Your agency has mastered making employees unaccountable since TSA refuses to tell us exactly what we must do to transit a TSA checkpoint. I maintain that publishing these things would not result in a lower security situation but would actually increase security since we would all know what was suppose to happen. The public could report both excessive screening and less than adequate screening. TSA uses SSI for the simple reason of not being accountable for employee actions.
Originally Posted by slh14
(Post 15463362)
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?
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 15465092)
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.) Lying about something in the SOP bis a different issue that would have to be referred to a higher authority than myself - simply because I am not versed in the proper protocols for punitive action on that issue - that being said, ther is no excuse for it and it should be dealt with at a higher level than laziness simply because it is a great deal more serious. I personally would rather take the hit for not knowing what I am supposed to do than try to lie my way out of it and get nailed for something that is against one of the core values of the organization (Integrity). |
I am reminded of the story of "The Emperors New Clothes".
|
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 15467189)
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.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15467211)
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.
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 15467266)
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.
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15466859)
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. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15467327)
A TSO being lazy should be dealt a reprimand and forced to retrain - at a minimum, with progressive punitive action if it is a reoccurring behavior (so there is a proper paper trail if anything else ever arises). Even if the TSO is just being lazy, they have a fall back position of contacting an STSO to dump it off on them, so it is pretty tough to have a great deal of mercy on them.
Lying about something in the SOP bis a different issue that would have to be referred to a higher authority than myself - simply because I am not versed in the proper protocols for punitive action on that issue - that being said, ther is no excuse for it and it should be dealt with at a higher level than laziness simply because it is a great deal more serious. I personally would rather take the hit for not knowing what I am supposed to do than try to lie my way out of it and get nailed for something that is against one of the core values of the organization (Integrity). We're all pretty familiar with the recent reports indicating that TSA package handlers are woefully undertrained. We're also well aware that filing a formal complaint with the TSA will result in a time-out in the Magic Plexiglas Penalty Box next time we're required to fly. And again, how does anyone but another TSA package handler know if anyone is lying about the SOP, since the SOP is still classified Super Secret Squirrel? |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15467371)
Anytime I can help someone to understand something, or be better prepared for their airport experience - I have made a difference regardless of your opinion. I will probably never change your mind on something, or Boggie Dog, or RadioGirl, or any number of the regulars here. However there have been a ton of folks that are not in disagreement with the agency to the degree that some of you folks are - that I have given information about specific situations, and some policies - that is why I come to these sites... and a bit of dialogue back and forth, and to learn from regular (frequent) passengers. I have learned things here that have helped me to do my job better and I have shared that with severeal other TSOs and that makes the transition through our checkpoint a bit easier on folks many times. That is a series of positive impacts that refute your assertion that I am wasting my time.:D
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15467371)
Again I will politely disagree with both of you that being able to go through the screening and watching it are different than having a step by step explanation of the process. When I worked at a Nuclear Weapons Storage facility for the Army, there were tons of things we did that were observable by the public and enemies alike, but it was different than posting the steps on a billboard (or in this case a website or checkpoint area) for all to read.
Your analogy fails on two levels. First of all, how many members of the general public request access to an Army nuclear weapons storage facility every day? Hundreds, maybe? How many members of the general public request access to the secure area of a commercial airport every day? Millions. When you have to show your SSI procedures to millions of people every day, the ability to preserve your "secrets" is drastically reduced. Secondly, the nature of both facilities is very different. How many civilians request access to a nuclear weapons storage facility because they're on vacation? Indeed, I would assume that one is banned from entering such a facility unless one obtains specific governmental permission. We're not at the point where one has to obtain specific, positive governmental permission to fly --- although Secure Flight is getting dangerously close to that. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15467371)
Again I will politely disagree with both of you that being able to go through the screening and watching it are different than having a step by step explanation of the process. When I worked at a Nuclear Weapons Storage facility for the Army, there were tons of things we did that were observable by the public and enemies alike, but it was different than posting the steps on a billboard (or in this case a website or checkpoint area) for all to read. There is also the fact that I do not have all of the information that went into the decision making process, so I can't say intelligently that there is no reason to not publish all of the information.
1) A Bad Guy can get patted down at, say, 10 different airports and still not know what he can or can't hide on his person. (= TSA's claim that not publicizing the details of the patdown keeps the Bad Guys from figuring it out.) or 2) TSA just can't be bothered to try to align all the screeners at all the checkpoints in all the airports in the US, and then deal with complaints from passengers that some of its poorly trained, woefully supervised screeners are doing it wrong. Yeah, right. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I'll be awake all night trying to guess between those two options. In securing a nuclear weapons facility (or any building), you have a range of measures: locks, keys/codes for entry, surveillance cameras, alarms, etc, PLUS an examination of people entering and leaving the facility. The people entering and leaving will figure out the measures you have for searching them but the other measures may well be unknown. In the airport checkpoint environment, it's only the search of a human body that's the issue. Once someone figures that out by experiencing it, any "secrecy" about your "process" is pretty well gone. I think your last statement - that you don't know the reasons for the decision to keep the process secret - is really the key point. We're just asking you to think logically about that, instead of just accepting whatever HQ says. @:-) |
Ignore them Gsoltso
They gripe about the radiation risks, yet they still talk on their cell phones constantly which gives them a much higher cancer risk.
As per a poll here, they want to go back to no security. They don't believe that people want to blow up planes. They probably believe 9/11 was a government sponsored event just so they could increase security and have reason to "grope" Do you job and realize that the VAST majority of Americans (by all polls) are behind you. Merry Christmas to you and your colleagues!! |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 15467544)
I think your last statement - that you don't know the reasons for the decision to keep the process secret - is really the key point. We're just asking you to think logically about that, instead of just accepting whatever HQ says. @:-)
Some parts, such as how to handle a potentially threatening object (BRAVO! anyone ?) could just conceivably be of interest to a terrorist. What passengers ought to experience going through the checkpoint, and how to handle untrained/rogue screeners is not going to compromise the process, except in the minds of those who like the secrecy. Knowledge is power, yadda, yadda. Drawing parallels to military situations is not only facile and tiresome, it indicates a mindset which has no place in a civil airport when dealing with civilians. Claims of "war" notwithstanding.
Originally Posted by meisterau
(Post 15467586)
As per a poll here, they want to go back to no security.
If you're simply exaggerating for effect (and the rest of your frothing indicates that's probably the case), then you needn't answer. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15467327)
I disagree, publishing the basics for folks traveling is different than giving a step by step guide on how to beat the procedure. That is my personal opinion on why so many of the rule are not published -
You are talking about two different types of situations, and they are miles apart. A TSO being lazy should be dealt a reprimand and forced to retrain - Lying about something in the SOP bis a different issue that would have to be referred to a higher authority than myself - simply because I am not versed in the proper protocols for punitive action on that issue - that being said, ther is no excuse for it and it should be dealt with at a higher level than laziness simply because it is a great deal more serious. I personally would rather take the hit for not knowing what I am supposed to do than try to lie my way out of it and get nailed for something that is against one of the core values of the organization (Integrity). |
Originally Posted by meisterau
(Post 15467586)
They gripe about the radiation risks, yet they still talk on their cell phones constantly which gives them a much higher cancer risk.
As per a poll here, they want to go back to no security. They don't believe that people want to blow up planes. They probably believe 9/11 was a government sponsored event just so they could increase security and have reason to "grope" Do you job and realize that the VAST majority of Americans (by all polls) are behind you. Merry Christmas to you and your colleagues!! Please explain this poll Meisterau that came out after the new security measures went into affect and people actually started to experience them. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...-measures.html |
Originally Posted by meisterau
(Post 15467586)
They gripe about the radiation risks, yet they still talk on their cell phones constantly which gives them a much higher cancer risk.
Originally Posted by meisterau
(Post 15467586)
As per a poll here, they want to go back to no security. They don't believe that people want to blow up planes.
BTW, in that thread, someone named RadioGirl said:
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 15370766)
The OP is likely setting up to use this thread to say "most people on TS&S don't want any airport security at all". Which is not true. TSA uses polls where people are offered the choice between the body scanner and an invasive patdown to claim that that "most people like the body scanners." Also not true.
My vote: this poll is flawed. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05 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.