bailing on our duty?
 

Right, the procedures don't require TSO's to ensure line-of-sight(i.e., place all pax in front of their belongings and pry their eyes open). But this is miles away from permitting TSO's to prevent pax from fulfilling their responsibility to control their belongings.

As a good citizen, I will fulfill my responsibility as described in official information like TSA's web site, which no individual employee has the power to modify. I won't bail on that duty.

I suspect that the issue is that there are checkpoint designs (I can think of one spot at the "F" gate checkpoint at FLL) where the is no place that an uncleared passenger can stand and be able to see parts of the x-ray exit without being too close to the passenger circulation. And the claim is that the SOP now makes those configurations acceptable.

This situation leads to concurrent non-resolvable inconsistencies in the application of two separate absolute requirements, neither of which can both be satisfied at the same time.

It's tough to follow procedures that can not be followed. It sort of makes the approval of such conflicts, and their known continuance with the knowledge of their existence, an act of willful disregard for those that are required to follow simultaneously inconsistent procedures.

It reminds me of the redneck that drove his dog crazy by naming him after the CITGO gas station where he found him.

Except that an "officer" like SATTSO could deny you access to line of sight of your belongings as described, and you then face summary accusation and conviction of interfering with the screening process by refusing to follow the orders of an officer, which carries a fine of $11,000.

Think I'm joking? I have a letter in my mailbox that says otherwise.


All absolutely true, and the ultimate problem created by TSA's dog and pony show.

As to the last piece: ROTFLMAO!

Not unique to Sweden. Sometimes when replacing my Canadian passport, the government wants to see a copy of my LPR card.

And when applying for a visa, India and China want to see a copy of the LPR card (at least one Chinese consulate insists on seeing the original mailed in; good luck with that).

No, I think the SOP resolved it by saying that the "requirment" that people be able to see their property is not an absolute requirement in that case.

If information saying a person does not have to have a visual on their property is not provided to the public then a case can be made that such claim does not exist.

There is clear information currently published by TSA saying a person must have visual contact with their property.

So which prevails, a secret policy I cannot verify or information publicly published by TSA?

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that :td: .

trying to understand
 

Not disputing, just don't understand: "too close to the pax circulation"? Isn't that just what I need to prevent, circulating pax putting things in my luggage?

"And the claim is . . ." A claim that contradicts official information is an oral utterance that I can't rely on. Employees can't override web site info published to inform me of my duties; the web site overrides the employee.

Isn't that just what a terrorist or a sympathizer who had infiltrated TSA would say: Don't do what the web site requires, do what I order you to do?

O.K., we think maybe something something, but we don't know. Wouldn't I be on firmer ground following guidelines written for me?

^ "must have visual contact"--not a suggestion to be followed if convenient, but a requirement imposed to preserve the chain of evidence. What would be TSA's (or an employee's) rationale that outweighs the chain of evidence? And if none is provided, or it would not convince a reasonable person, aren't we bound to follow agency guidelines, not some possibly rogue employee?

Again, not disputing you experienced folks here, just trying to understand.

Trying to understand TSA is impossible. TSA has every "ism" known by today's psychiatrist.

Make sure that your complaint raises the possibility that you were targeted because you are of a different race than the groper (assuming you are; in my part of the country, agents are grossly disproportionately a particular profile). If s/he treated others who were of the same race in a more professional manner, this should be brought up.

I don't know that it will do much good to complain, but it will give ammunition to a superior who wants to boot someone that otherwise might be difficult to get rid of.

Sure, but the TSA also needs to prevent unscreened passengers from getting too close to screened passengers.

Nobody here (and certainly not me) is suggesting that people not make a best effort to keep their property in sight, so I don't understand your point. What we're discussing is whether there are situations where those efforts will not be successful and whether those are considered "valid" checkpoints designs by TSA standards. None of us who don't have access to SSI can be sure of the answer to that, but if we're to believe the statements here of those who do have such access (and I see no reason to disbelieve them in this area) it seems that such a design may be permissible under certain situations.

If I am allowed to watch my belongings and I am permitted to place myself in a position to do such, the I accept the responsibility for the safety and security of those belongings. I will scream bloody murder if they are bothered and I would expect a protective reaction from the TSA or LEO's based on my "alarm." I accept that as the system that exists, imperfect as it may be, and I can work with it.

However, if the TSA is using a CP design or configuration that does not permit my active participation in securing my belongings, and the same design or configuration does not permit the compliance with their own published standards then by their decision or negligence in CP design they have at least a nominal duty to provide the security that I can not provide for myself. If they are not going to permit me to watch my belongings, then I expect them to watch them.

It is ridiculous to say that it is my responsibility to watch them, then not allow me to watch them. A responsible organization would say that we would like for you to watch your belongings, but we realize that this CP design does not permit it. Therefore, we will accept responsibility for your things until you reach the position that can again provide visual security for your belongings.

If they were to do that, then I would find that an acceptable alternative.

What we get is, "You must watch your stuff. If you can not, tough. Get over it. It's not our problem. You should not have opted out."

ORD, Terminal 1, Premier Access checkpoint about 11 am. Everybody was being sent through the 2 backscatters. I lined up my stuff on the belt and told TSA I was opting out. They called for female assist (there were a few already on the other side) and told me to shove my stuff through and then stand by a glass barrier with full view of the belt. Got let through the barrier in about 10-15 seconds while my stuff was coming out of the belt, and never lost sight of it (valuables were locked in the carry on but my laptop was obviously in its sleeve in a bin). During those moments and during the rubdown, TSO's went out of their way to make sure I didn't lose sight of my stuff. Could have been this particular supervisor and shift actually showing some common sense...well, we can always hope.

It was discouraging that there were very few other opt-outs during my contact time at the checkpoint. But with the backscatter line being fed by two xray belts, there's no way those people could have kept track of their stuff. So at this checkpoint location, opt-out is actually better for watching your possessions.

living Kafka
 

O.K., right, hadn't really thought of that. Screened pax, in theory, can't plant anything in my luggage (no, wait, there goes the rationale for gate re-screening), although they and rogue TSA employees can steal something.

So my putative duty of keeping my luggage in sight can be trumped by unverifiable statements by employees. The situation really is that absurd. What's required is forbidden and what's forbidden is required. It's hard to argue with logic like that.

Thank you, Mr. Kenner and others, you may actually have helped keep me out of serious trouble. I had visions of insisting on maintaining line-of-sight; now I know that may be impractical, perhaps illegal, and when it is, just trust TSA.

I'm very uncomfortable with the situation, that's all. It's exasperating and worrisome. I have read Kafka; I try not to live it.