|
Originally Posted by srilm
(Post 15484756)
I would rather see them stay and fight for what is right.
I'm betting not.
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15486101)
We going fishing?
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15486521)
It would be nice to know that any of them were doing so, if they are.
I'm betting not. Another little "tidbit" from the interview: "As far as the intrusiveness and the invasiveness of the person, based on what we know, I don't see us going further than" current policy, he says. "I don't think we can, frankly. I think we've probably reached the public limit." So we have established that it IS an intrusive and invasive process, by his own words. And we've only stopped because we've "reached the public limit". No concern whatsoever about rights or laws. Basically, it's OK to do whatever we want as long as the people don't revolt. ----- As an aside to this discussion, accidents have brought down far more planes than terrorists, so why aren't we clamoring for more maintenance, more flight safety? Pilots, mechanics, and ATC have a whole lot more to do with your safety than any TSA agent. When's the last time you (a general you) thanked one of them? When's the last time your kids gave one of them a thank-you card? My theory is that most people will sacrifice their rights in the name of safety, but are not willing to pay more for tickets or suffer delayed or canceled flights. ... and that's just sad SR |
Originally Posted by srilm
(Post 15487162)
As easy as it is to ask someone to become a martyr and/or lose their job, it's not as easy to do it yourself.
|
Originally Posted by greentips
(Post 15483392)
Lying is a serious offense. It is an offense which warrants termination for cause in nearly every situation. If someone will lie about following/not following a required procedure, they will lie about other things. I have fired and will fire doctoral level employees for lying and making things up.
As for lazy employees: there's very little difference. If I am paying you to do a job and you won't do it, you will be gone. Taking wages for a specific job, then not doing that job is stealing, and that is not tolerated either. snip Hopefully, Congressman Chaffetz will pick up where Congressman Oberstar leaves off: a bill (HR 2200) to require TSA to enter the rule-making process or void any policy/protocol/procedure based on SSI within six months of its issuance. This bill passed the house and is held up in the Senate. I suspect he will and when it passes, at least then we can end that part of the charade. Not so. I am a medical professional and a teacher of medical students and young physicians, and was an executive at a DoE/DoD prime contractor at a facility doing classified research. For precisely the same reasons screening a family member and doing a pelvic on a family member is verboten. You cannot be objective. And with security, a key element is independence and duplication of observation. But that isn't what TSA does. It is supposed to find, and prohibit WEI, nothing more. It is not running a nuclear weapons facility, it is not running a medical facility. The reason this subject came up is TSA was uncomfortable doing patdowns, as an exercise on each other. How much or by what means and for what purpose I carry cash is none of the government's business. It is not illegal, and that has been made clear. Cash is not contraband in any way, shape or form, and unless it will make the airplane overweight or out of balance it is not a threat to flight safety. GSOLTSO, this is not intended to be a knock on you. It is your agency that directs you; from what I see you are most reasonable in your assessments and perspective. If the government deems that the way I carry cash appears to be related to criminal activity, it had better be prepared articulate probable cause to obtain a search warrant, arrest me and be prepared to face a civil lawsuit if they make stuff up. Win or lose such a lawsuit, they cost a lot of money to defend, are a major pain and consume vast amounts of time. I will instruct my attorney to make it as expensive as possible for the defendant(s). This path was paved by Steve Beirfeldt and TSA changed its rules: As for international travel, if it appears I have more than $10k, a simple call to the Port Customs officer would be adequate to determine if the FinCen 105 has been filed, if there was indeed more than $10k departing the US. Not necessarily, not all of us are brought up with a super duper work ethic and working with someone to instill one can produce a good employee (if they improve - if not, then out they go too). I guess we can chalk this up to what level of laziness we are talking about too... If you have someone that is slack once in awhile, I can work to curb that and remediate it - if it is someone that is fundamentally lazy then that is likely something neither of us could push the employee out of. I welcome the open exchange of information and like standardized procedures, however, I can also relate to the reasoning given for maintaining some SSI from the public. Where that line is will never be left up to me, so I guess I will get to watch and see where we go from here. It would certainly make answering some questions on here and the TSA blog much easier, but I am not going to place a great deal of faith in it yet. I admitted an ethical quandry earlier based on a security point of view. Personally I would hope that I would be ethical enough to be objective, but the agency should not rely on that (and I would recuse myself anyway). No personal knocks taken! I will say that many times large amounts of cash have to be checked due to its appearance on the x-ray. If I check the bag, and there is nothing untoward found while clearing it for threats - adios - unless there appears to be over 10k and you are traveling international and that is simply a contact Customs deal. If illegal items are found during a search to clear for threat items, we are required to notify an STSO first, and an LEO. That is fundamentally different than searching a bag with the intention of finding *illegal* items.
Originally Posted by billycorgan
(Post 15483869)
GSOL
You have been good about answering questions, and I know that you have said you would have no problem with your children going through the process. I would like to ask you if you do actually have children. Based on your responses I am led to believe that you don't. Just want to confirm.
Originally Posted by mikemey
(Post 15483946)
I've read this thread with some curiousity, amusement, and, honestly, disgust as well.
First, I'll give kudos where they're deserved. gsoltso has been nothing but polite, courteous, and has actually gone out of his way to be as helpful as his employer allows him to be in answering questions and concerns. Note what I said there - as his employer allows him. Yet some of you attack him because he won't tell you something that is "SSI". You really want him to lose his job, as abhorrent as we find what he does, because of an internet forum? Come on guys, it's Christmas (Festivus, whatever you like). I see a *LOT* of shooting of the messenger, and not a lot of being angry at the message. It's OK, I do it too. However, it HAS to stop. If we're to be taken seriously, the message has to be the target, not the individual stating it. So I'll thank gsoltso for what he has contributed to this thread. If I flew out of Greensboro, I'd absolutely offer to meet him for a cup of coffee and discuss life, the universe, and everything. I dare say he's given more information than some of our other resident TSOs, and has done so in a matter that is neither condenscending or confrontational, which is more than I can say for some of you. Don't let that mean I like who he works for. Far from it. I think I can go out on a limb here and say we're all sick and tired of what the TSA and the DHS has foisted on us. Here's my laundry list: 1. SOP. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is SSI. I honestly think that the part regarding pax screening could absolutely be released to the public. I understand why the TSA thinks keeping it secret is good. But, if the TSA wanted to make the security process as smooth as possible, they'd tell us exactly how to prepare for screening, and more importantly, how that screening *should* proceed. I dare say this will not give terrorists a playbook, it will give the pax what to prepare for, how they should be treated, and might actually give a BDO better opportunity actually do what BDOs do. This leads me to my 2nd point... 2. Consistency between locations. Oh...My...GOD, this is horrible. I know how I'm treated at RDU, and it certainly doesn't square with how I'm treated at EWR, which doesn't square with what happens at MCO, etc etc etc. I blame training and the fact that the SOP isn't public knowledge, the local TSOs take liberty. If each and EVERY airport did everything the same, to the lines of an SOP that is public, I honestly think complaints about what the TSA does would go away. 3. WBI - The complaint du jure. I wouldn't have a problem with WBI if it were used to clear an alarm from the WTMD. But its use as a primary screening method is a violation of the 4th amendment. Also, I really want to see some peer reviewed data about both methods of WBI before I'm ready to say maybe. There is none. Show me the data. 4. "Enhanced" patdowns. There is no reason on earth that a person wishing to travel via air should have to be subjected to a pat down that would exceed what some maximum security prisons subject prisoners to. If the secondary shows a problem in a specific location, then concentrate on that. There is no need to check my wife's breasts if an alarm is for something around her ankles. WBI combined with a local patdown for an alarm as a secondary to a WTMD alarm (patdown only necessary if the WBI shows further alarm) would be a better option than the grope. 5. Mission creep. OMG. It's not the TSA's job to look for drugs in a bag, or check for >$10k cash, or check the metro, or sit at a bus terminal, or sit outside my driveway. Show you can do one thing well first before you branch out. You haven't done that yet. 6. Retaliation. Yes, human nature is to lash out or "get even" with someone who disrupts your routine. We all do it. However, to bark at a pax who has the audacity to bring their kids to the airport during Thanksgiving then take your anger with them out on the next pax (me) isn't acceptable. To mark a BP with SSSS because someone realizes you're trying to SPOT them and doesn't want to play isn't acceptable. Or to grab breasts or genitals because someone decides to opt out of WBI isn't acceptable. So take a breath. 7. Training. Or, more accurately, lack of. That a TDC doesn't know what a NEXUS card is is unacceptable. Even worse, that he doesn't know how to look the darned thing up in the manual. I've seen that manual (most local PD's have one) and it's not all that hard to use. That 2 TSO's do a pat down differently is not acceptable. Train your people, 80 hours, 100 hours, 200 hours, whatever it takes to get it into their heads. Enforce proper techniques through escalating disciplinary action. Tell the people that you do care for what they think, rather than blow off a complaint. Yeah, my novel is done. I don't blame individual TSOs for this list. I blame the TSA and the DHS. However, I can stop and say it's not always the TSOs fault that something has gone amiss - it could be his training, it could be ignorance, it could be a breakdown in communication, it could be (likely) bad policy making. Yes the TSO is a target. Because he's the face of the TSA, the one we all interact with, it makes it easy. It shouldn't necessarily be this way exclusively. However, the commentary I see on here doesn't help our cause, which is true TSA reform. It only makes us look like immature brats crying because we can't get our way. Lets get together and work for the common goal, rise above the name calling, and make progress. Otherwise, we get nowhere. <steps off soapbox> 1. If we disclose the entirity of the SOP, we will provide a blueprint for *bad guys* to work around the screening protocols. I understand what the organization is saying, and how they reached this conclusion. I agree that some of the SOP being SSI does not really make as much sense as other parts, but I do agree that the built in inconsistencies make it more difficult for people with ill intent to get something through. The big question is whether the tradeoff in damage to passenger relations is worth the edge it may give you in security, and that is a question that will be decided by the headshed (and currently the answer is yes). 2. This ties into the planned inconsistencies that are part of the SOP. I agree that it is maddening for the passenger and not much better for the TSO so again, it is a question of whether the tradeoff is worth it - and currently the answer is yes. 3. The ability of the AIT to find non-metallic threats makes it an excellent screening tool. I am not certain on the primary screening role and understand the hesitation. I like the fact that the AIT can find things that are a threat that the WTMD would miss. I dislike all the conflict over the privacy parameters and the organization is working on the Automated Threat Recognition system to bring it up to speed for deployment with the AIT here. That leaves the questions about AIT and radiation, and I can understand the worry and confusion. I am not technorati enough to understand the rems and rads, but the machines have been cleared by fairly reputable organizations and gov entities for use. Again, I do not have enough information to firmly plant myself in either camp, although I tend to lean towards the gov entities - maybe because I work for them, maybe because of some other reason I can't pinpoint... Not sure. 4. There is not really an enhanced pat down anymore, there is simply the pat down and further screening steps taken to resolve anomalies and alarms. "Enhanced" was something that may have been used during the roll out or testing phase or something like that, but that is not really the name, just the patdown. 5. I don't really have much for this one other than the TSA has been tasked with more than just aviation security and we have been focused primarily on aviation since the organizations inception. There are actually some pretty loud voices politically that TSA has not done enough to protect the subways and mass transit in large metro areas. Again, I lean towards the organization simply because our mandate called for more than aviation and we have not done much until the last couple of years to do so. 6. Agreed. No retaliation should be a mantra here at TSA. 7. I agree, if I do not know what an ID is, I am going to look it up (there are some that we do not see often here - tribal IDs, TWIC, NEXUS) In 6 years of working with TSA, I have seen like 2 Nexus cards in person, and we have recently had more TWICs come through in a week than we had the previous time I have been here You can stay on the soapbox because you make valid points in a lucid way, even if I disagree with some of what you say, it is nice to read something that makes a point instead of repetitive diatribes laced with insults and namecalling. ^
Originally Posted by Ayn R Key
(Post 15484488)
As long as the SOP is SSI, I cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not I am willing to submit to the full screening.
As long as I cannot make an informed decision, I may find myself wanting to terminate the screening process after it has begun due to the greater information I will have once the screening begins. But the TSA threatens to fine people $10,000 if they try to terminate the screening process after it has begun. That means that any contact made is under duress, threat of punishment, if the person discovers what the screening entails and decides they do not wish to comply and would prefer to not fly rather than endure the screening. That means that any contact made is made under threat. That makes it molestation / rape. All because the SOP is SSI. You're doing your best, trying hard to answer questions here, but the situation is similar to two people playing one-on-one basketball and one of them has their hands tied behind their back. The declaration of "SOP is SSI" is preventing you from actually helping anybody. You'll never make a basket unless you can use your hands. You need to go to Blogger Bob, and between the two of you confront his boss and tell them that.
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15486530)
Depends on who you're referring to as "we." The TSA is, apparently, going to go fishing through every traveler's underwear, claiming that doing so will contribute to the security of the flight while knowing full well that the AIT and "enhanced pat-downs" do absolutely nothing to contribute to the actual safety of the flight.
TSA is screening for threat items in both mentioned situations above, and I happen to think that in doing so, improve the safety of the flying public. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15488503)
Aw man, I was hoping you had a boat too.
TSA is screening for threat items in both mentioned situations above, and I happen to think that in doing so, improve the safety of the flying public. Screening for "threat items" contributes nothing in the way of safety. Screening for actual threats, on the other hand... On sheer numbers alone, the statistical likelihood of the new screening methods causing actual harm approaches 100% while the probability of detecting and stopping an actual threat remains close to zero. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15481813)
Since I can't discuss SOP, I will refer you to a previous thread here for a discussion on patdowns for better information.
Ahh, the Nature article, please read my tagline. Actually, I have no problem with my family members being screened according to SOP, because that is neither of your comments. |
gsoltso;15488486]I do have children (and a Navy kid we have kind of adopted - long story), and even have a grand child. 1. If we disclose the entirity of the SOP, we will provide a blueprint for *bad guys* to work around the screening protocols. I understand what the organization is saying, and how they reached this conclusion. I agree that some of the SOP being SSI does not really make as much sense as other parts, but I do agree that the built in inconsistencies make it more difficult for people with ill intent to get something through. The big question is whether the tradeoff in damage to passenger relations is worth the edge it may give you in security, and that is a question that will be decided by the headshed (and currently the answer is yes). 2. This ties into the planned inconsistencies that are part of the SOP. I agree that it is maddening for the passenger and not much better for the TSO so again, it is a question of whether the tradeoff is worth it - and currently the answer is yes. If the procedure is effective it doesn't have to be inconsistent. 3. The ability of the AIT to find non-metallic threats makes it an excellent screening tool. I am not certain on the primary screening role and understand the hesitation. I like the fact that the AIT can find things that are a threat that the WTMD would miss. I dislike all the conflict over the privacy parameters and the organization is working on the Automated Threat Recognition system to bring it up to speed for deployment with the AIT here. That leaves the questions about AIT and radiation, and I can understand the worry and confusion. I am not technorati enough to understand the rems and rads, but the machines have been cleared by fairly reputable organizations and gov entities for use. Again, I do not have enough information to firmly plant myself in either camp, although I tend to lean towards the gov entities - maybe because I work for them, maybe because of some other reason I can't pinpoint... Not sure. See the FT thread: AOL Investigation: No Proof TSA Scanners Are Safe 4. There is not really an enhanced pat down anymore, there is simply the pat down and further screening steps taken to resolve anomalies and alarms. "Enhanced" was something that may have been used during the roll out or testing phase or something like that, but that is not really the name, just the patdown. 5. I don't really have much for this one other than the TSA has been tasked with more than just aviation security and we have been focused primarily on aviation since the organizations inception. There are actually some pretty loud voices politically that TSA has not done enough to protect the subways and mass transit in large metro areas. Again, I lean towards the organization simply because our mandate called for more than aviation and we have not done much until the last couple of years to do so. I would be happy to see TSA focus efforts on aviation cargo hold items. Stay away from every other source of transport, we don't need you. 6. Agreed. No retaliation should be a mantra here at TSA. 7. I agree, if I do not know what an ID is, I am going to look it up (there are some that we do not see often here - tribal IDs, TWIC, NEXUS) In 6 years of working with TSA, I have seen like 2 Nexus cards in person, and we have recently had more TWICs come through in a week than we had the previous time I have been here You can stay on the soapbox because you make valid points in a lucid way, even if I disagree with some of what you say, it is nice to read something that makes a point instead of repetitive diatribes laced with insults and namecalling. ^ I can understand your frustration, and I have outlined reasoning to disagree with some of what you say. I will not rehash those reasons here, but I will say that I am sorry that I am unable to give better information. Also for the record, Bob is in HQ and I am in HQ, so that would be one Hades of a commute to confront a boss. Also, we do not always see eye to eye on things, and I am willing to confront when there is an issue that is compelling enough to move me to that point. Currently I have not reached that point because I agree with much of what the organization does, and understand the reasoning enough on even more. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15479770)
Rolando Negrin is responsible for the result of his situation, the person that commented to him was responsible for the start of the situation. If Negrin had a big enough problem with folks making commentary, he should have followed up with a complaint and gone up the chain with it.
|
Another little jewel from the interview:
The message from the TSA boss: The next time a man or woman in blue gets warm and friendly with you at the airport check, give some love back. Sounds to me like it's OK with him if the junk-touching goes both ways. SR |
GSOLTSO & Caradoc
I'm not sure the search for "threat items" is supposed to be for 'safety' as opposed to 'security'. The whole safety/security issue has been running around in my head for a while now, and I have a bit of an issue with it (note: my background may cause some bias which causes this, and it may all come down to semantics). The TSA, I feel, is supposed to be more directed to security and attempting to keep 'dangerous things' off of aircraft. Actual aviation professionals are there for the safe operation of an aircraft which has an inherent element of risk before even throwing in the "boogyman de'jour" (as defined by the TSA). As a mechanic, working for a part 121 air carrier, I have to basically go on record that any aircraft that I work on directly, or oversee and release on a workorder is safe for continued operation. In addition to this, the assigned captain that is operating a flight must sign the release for that flight stating that he accepts the aircraft that they are using as safe for that flight, and that is returned to the gate agent/operations dept and placed on file. If something happens that is MX related; these records can be gone back over, and reviewed for what was done and by whom (I'll provide an example if needed). The part that gets to me is the TSA, or some representatives thereof, run around with the mantra 'all in the name of safety', but there is no documented record (signed and filed either for the flight, or in the aircraft records) that makes any statement that the plane/flight is 'safe'. Training, at least from what I pick up reading here, is also a sore subject with some people, but I'm not going to try and go into that. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15489097)
The public should be able to expect that if TSA is going to require the showing of ID that at least they would know which ones are ok. Today that is not the case and in my opinion another management problem. Fix it!
I thoroughly enjoyed having a Starbucks on the American taxpayers' dime (overtime pay, about $125 per hour) for about 30 minutes, after which the supervisor for the airline came over to the TSA checkpoint and yelled "Have you seen the FAA guy? my flight is stuck at the gate waiting on him!" yes, you paid for the starbucks, too don't get me wrong, I do my job and do it well; but if some idiot doesn't let me, I'm perfectly fine with drinking a latte with extra caramel on the taxpayers' dime while the idiot figures out what a valid ID is. SR |
Originally Posted by srilm
(Post 15489555)
I know that an FAA ID, the ID for the centerpiece of aviation safety in the USA, which also represents at least a clearance to SSI, and in some cases top secret or better info -- is no good. EXACT words of a TSA agent to me: "an FAA ID? that means nothing to me."
I thoroughly enjoyed having a Starbucks on the American taxpayers' dime (overtime pay, about $125 per hour) for about 30 minutes, after which the supervisor for the airline came over to the TSA checkpoint and yelled "Have you seen the FAA guy? my flight is stuck at the gate waiting on him!" yes, you paid for the starbucks, too don't get me wrong, I do my job and do it well; but if some idiot doesn't let me, I'm perfectly fine with drinking a latte with extra caramel on the taxpayers' dime while the idiot figures out what a valid ID is. SR TSA and TSA employees make excuses every day for the failure of their employees. It's time to stop the excuses and fix the fricken problems. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15489097)
If the procedure is effective it doesn't have to be inconsistent.
So unless it includes some kind of ethnic profiling (gasp), I'll continue to believe that like a lot of TSA policy, it's ineffective smoke and mirrors and exists mainly to avoid holding screeners to any kind of performance standard. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 15484218)
We're splitting hairs between the two of us here ... but, what the heck, I'll go ahead and dispute with you for just a little bit. :)
Right now, the "no-fly" list is a list of people who are not permitted to fly. Presumably, there has to be a reason to be placed on that list (as arbitrary as it might be in practice). Consequently, one doesn't specifically need positive permission to fly; one needs to verify (to the satisfaction of the government) that one has not been banned from flying. There would be a significant difference if one had to obtain specific, positive permission to fly. Officials would have to have a specific reason to grant permission to a passenger. They could deny permission solely on the basis of not having enough information on which to act ... or other, less savory reasons. (Images of Casablanca are coming to mind ...) Anyways ... I agree that the distinction between the two scenarios is subtle. But there's a difference between asking "Am I on the no-fly list?" and "May I fly today?". Gratefully, we're not at the latter stage. (Yet.) If, for some reason, the DHS computers are down or can't process the passenger in time then it will not approve issuance of the boarding pass (e.g. "not enough info to act"). So, yes, under Secure Flight we have moved to a position of "government approval required to fly". Same holds true for international travel and APIS. I would agree with your assertion when the airlines compared passengers to the DNF and watch lists. They could issue without specific government authorization (unless, of course, the passenger was a hit on the lists). Airlines can't issue any more without government OK. |
I continue to scan this thread but am no longer reading each and every post because if I hear one more time how the SOP must remain "secret" so as not to give the bad guys a blueprint for terror then I'm going to stick my head in a toilet and press flush.
That *has* to be the most lame excuse I have ever heard in my life. It is WAY to convenient, is inherently invalid (i.e., if the procedures worked, they would not need to be kept secret), is extremely condescending to the citizens of this country, and is a recipe for an SOP that can be disregarded and abused because the perpetrators cannot be held accountable for their actions. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:11 pm. |
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.