tinman435

+4, and it's all because of the out-of-control security-theater & attitude of the tso's i've had to deal with.

maniac78

Interesting that instead of being on the lookout for actual terrorists they are on the lookout for "trouble makers". I think this thread pretty much sums up the problem here. The TSA's mission is to keep the TSA in the security theater business.

DTWjerome

Hey! I think you are talking about me! I saw a FT tag on a bag a few weeks ago and talked to the young lady it belonged to. I remember steering her to the TS/S forums because we are not to well liked here. I wish I would have seen your post sooner to answer any questions you had of me...

SnallaBolaget

It's a little funny to see how this thread starts out with a rather innocent question as to why some TSA agent would make a remark about FT'ers being troublemakers, just to be met with feigned ignorance as to what the reason for that might be, and then the whole thing just spirals down into exactly the reasons behind the comments in the first place.

Personally, I would be extremely wary of anyone with an FT tag on their bag if I was still in airport security (doesn't matter that I'm outside the US) and I completely understand the opinion the TSA has of the people who post in this forum. The amount of bile, lies, accusations, hate and random spewing of various poison is, quite frankly, insane at times. Even for the internet... and that's saying something.

The forum is called "Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate", but I've yet to see any real debate. Everything degenerates into mindless slinging of manure against everyone who works for the TSA and everything they do. Everyone is miserable with the rules and procedures as they are, but no one here is actually able to carry on a meaningful debate on options, alternatives, or even hints, tips, and tricks as to how to deal with the procedures that are in effect at the moment.

Until there's actually some real debate going on, where people actually use real words (instead of substituting them for derogatory terms at every opportunity) and where there's some real exchange of opinions and ideas without the bile and hate, then the opinion of the TSA will continue to be that FT'ers are troublemakers, and that the people posting here aren't worth listening to.

Oh, and also - the TSA-guy didn't say that FT'ers wanted a new 9/11 - he said another security failure. A security failure could be a knife slipping through, for crying out loud. Nobody wants another 9/11 - first bullet point should be to stop putting words in other peoples' mouths.

-SB-

dan1431

IMHO and I comfortable saying this, the most vitriolic, outspoken posters on this board, may hate the TSA, but would never want a tragedy to occur here in the USA nor anyplace on earth.

I firmly believe that I do not have to like the TSA (as an agency or specific people in the agency) nor do I have to like their policies and procedures as long as I follow them when passing through their domain (the airport).

Recently, I had an employee start yelling at me because I had forgotten to take off my shoes and he did not catch it till after I had started collecting my bags. Clearly, it was my fault for forgetting to take off my shoes and I apologized on the spot asking how I could remedy the situation, but kindly requesting (at the same time) that he stop yelling at me as I made an innocent mistake and there was no malicious intent involved.

He continued to yell at me, and that is the part I do not like, we are human we make mistakes and for the man to keep yelling at me when I openly apologized and asked about a remedy was imho out of line and one of the reason for my distaste of the TSA.

Clearly, the dude was on a power trip (something that the agency as a whole seems to breed) and wanted to exercise his authority, even though I was not trying to question nor usurp his authority at any time, so why yell?

There are policies I do not like because I believe that they are useless, do nothing for security as they are simply window dressing or because IMHO they violate my rights as a U.S. citizen, but I do not argue (though I probably should as that is a right of a being a U.S. citizen) as I do not want to annoy, molest, bother the TSA because as I have said many times they can make my life more miserable than I can make theirs.

My point is simple, the TSA does not give us many reasons to like them, but they are what is there and as long as I want to fly (somewhat peacefully) I will follow their employees instructions, the agencies policies and procedures to the T (as best I can), but I do not have to like their employees nor their policies and procedures.

Dan

DTWjerome

Believe it or not, I agree with most of the posters here in these forums! There are a lot of "power hungry" and "respect my authority" types that I work with. It drives me absolutely crazy! I ALWAYS encourage anybody that receives bad treatment to immediately talk to the supervisor and fill out a comment card! They DO work!
I have been at my job long enough to know who to make small talk with, and who not to! I GENUINELY respect the flyers out here. I am not here to make trouble.
So, If you ever are flying out of DTW North terminal south checkpoint (NK, CO, UA, RJ, F9)... look for me, I'll be the one wearing the fresh pair of blue gloves . And I'll be the tall guy with the horn-rimmed glasses.

As to the OP, It might have seemed that I didn't want to "elaborate" because your body language suggested that you were ready to go on your way... and I didn't want to hold you up any further.

SnallaBolaget

@dan1431
I guess that if we all liked the TSA and the policies, then there wouldn't really be a need for this forum... I'm not at all saying that anyone has to be comfortable with airport security and/or the policies that are in place today, I'm simply saying that there's a good reason why the TSA has the opinion it has on FT'ers. Discussion should always be had on topics that people aren't in agreement on, and airport security and the TSA aren't any different.

The story you tell is one of those that confuse me, however. If this man was yelling at you, can you describe the kind of volume he used? Was it a colume you'd use if your hunting buddy was aiming his rifle at you, thinking you were a deer, or was it the kind of volume you'd use to ask the guy in the next cubicle for a pen? I have to say, if this had happened in any of my checkpoints when I was in airport security, that officer would have gotten a stern talking to, provided it had gone down like you told it. Not in front of you or other passengers, mind you, but he/she should have been removed from the checkpoint.

It's easy to accuse people who actually have some authority of being on a power trip when we don't like what they're doing, but in most cases, they're simply carrying out orders and/or doing their jobs. It's not really a constructive thing to say...

Moving on... would you say that I, since I'm not a US citizen, would not have the right to "argue", as you say, if I'm in the US? Would I not have the same rights as you while I'm in the US legally, even though I am not a US citizen?
The reason I bring it up is that you point out that you are a US citizen twice in your post, even though it's hardly relevant... It's become a very tired argument that US citizens use every chance they get (both in and out of the US, crazily enough) and it comes across as nothing but ignorance and arrogance. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm just saying it to communicate what people outside the US think of that particular phrase...

-SB-

PhoenixRev

I am always amused when I read things like this because it plainly states that the problem isn't the TSA and its policies (like rubbing genitals, etc.) but that people are complaining about the TSA and its policies on Internets.

As for the "lies" on this forum, any said lies absolutely pale in comparison to the lies of the TSA including that the scanner images were innocuous enough to be put on the cover of Reader's Digest and handed out at your local preschool (uh, they weren't), or that your NEXUS card isn't accepted because "the TSA website it out of date." There are plenty of other "pants on fire" statements made by people like Blogger Bob who represent the TSA, but again, apparently, the real problem is people on the TS&S forum calling out the TSA on its crud.

The, quite frankly, you haven't been reading close enough. I have seen plenty of great ideas on this forum that have never been implemented nor have we received any confirmation that those ideas have even been talked about by TSA brass. Here are a couple of outstanding suggestions:

1. Signs listing the rights of the traveler - Clear, unambiguous signs stating whether shoes go on the belt or in the bin, whether the passenger can leave his or her Kindle in the bag or does it have to be pulled out of the bag, which IDs are accepted (so we don't have the BS "the TSA website is out of date" line given to us), declaring that a passenger always has the right to opt out of going through the scanner, etc.

2. Bait luggage - Let's see who is responsible when items go missing from a checked bag. Put a bait camera or iPad or laptop with a LoJack style device/software.

3. A true ombudsman in which to file grievances.

4. An independent, third-party full test of the scanners to ensure they are not exposing anyone to unnecessary radiation.

All of those suggestions (and many more) have been hashed out on this forum for as long as I have been posting and not a single one of those items above have been implemented (or even discussed as far as we know). In fact, I was the person who suggested the signs listing the rights of the traveler be put up and one of the TSOs who reads this forum said flat out it wasn't going to happen because there wasn't space to put them (because, apparently, the walls at your local airport are too cluttered with Monets).

exbayern

While I tend to agree with you regarding the 'US citizen' comments, I don't necessarily agree with all that you have posted above. (It does reflect a bit of how I feel, but not to that extent)

There are about a half dozen posters on TS&S who I think are so far at the end of the spectrum that they have collectively turned people off the anti-scanner, anti-TSA arguments. I can assure you that I know other FTers and posters in real life who have told me such. I even disregard what those posters who I consider the fringe element post, but they are certainly ones I consider a detriment to the cause.

When I first glanced at TS&S when it was created, I thought that it was populated by the tinfoil hat crowd. But after the underpants bomber incident I started to read more, and learned a lot. TS&S evolved again, and again, and after two rather distinct changes I tend to agree that it doesn't provide the same kind of value to the casual reader that it did for a short time. The population has changed, or moved on, leaving fewer people and as a result certain voices are louder than others. There is still value here, but one may have to search a little harder to find it, or wait a little longer for it to appear.

Having said that, it doesn't negate some of the behaviour that I personally have experienced from TSOs over the past 2-3 years. My experiences have changed dramatically, and while they are often unremarkable, they are quite often not.

I appreciate the comments from posters such as DTWjerome and gsoltso and a few others who have agreed that such behaviour is unacceptable. I consider the original comments from the TSO as quoted to fall into that category as well.

SnallaBolaget

I'm glad you're "amused", but no, it doesn't. If you, as you say, read closely, it actually plainly states that I would have been wary of FT'ers because of the things I have read on this forum, no other, just this one single forum, and this forum alone. That being this forum right here, the one we're posting to right now, if that was at all unclear. FlyerTalk, that is. Just FlyerTalk. FT = FlyerTalk, not "the internet".

"Rubbing genitals"... that's nice.

Well... seems to be a recurring problem then, the "not reading close enough". It might be true. I may not have been reading close enough. Might the problem be that these "great ideas" are drowning in all the stories of genital rubbing? Drowning in the "nude-o-scope" stories and the other bile that keeps flowing in? I think that might be so, actually.

Also, if someone who actually reads the forum can't really remember seeing any worthwhile threads of ideas and civilized discussion, then how would it come to the attention of "TSA brass"? It would actually also be strange if this "brass" was to come here and inform you about procedural discussions...

Oh, and as for my sharper tone (don't know if that was picked up on), it's because someone decided to put words in my mouth... I don't like that.

- SB -

PhoenixRev

I am pleased to know that you know exactly what I have experienced when I have opted out and had my genitals rubbed. It has happened and I think I am a better expert at knowing when my genitals have been rubbed than you are. But, let me be even more plain. If my spouse touched my genitals in public the way they have been touched by a TSO, there would be words, and a lot of them.

And calling the scanners "nude-o-scopes" is rather accurate, unless you want to join Blogger Bob in stating that the images from the scanners are innocuous enough to be put on the cover of Reader's Digest and handed out to the kiddies at your local preschool (that is, in fact, exactly what he said).

SnallaBolaget

I can't really recall that I've ever said that I know what you have experienced in the way of genital rubbing... nor that I am any kind of expert, least of all better than you, at knowing when you have or have not had your genitals rubbed.

If I have indeed made such statements, please direct me to the quote where I have written such things, and I will immediately apologize. The quote you've included has me talking about such stories in general, no? Also, the abundance of such and similar that are posted in this forum.

The term "nude-o-scope" is one of the things, in my opinion, that makes those great ideas drown in this forum, never to be seen again by "TSA brass" or anyone else... which is sad.

I'll ask you not to put words in my mouth - it's rude and I don't like it.

- SB -

halls120

Even if the debate on FT was always respectful and civilized, no one at TSA would pay any attention to it. TSA management doesn't listen to voices of concern about their policies and procedures from voices inside the government, and they aren't going to listen to any outside voices either. Instead of taking on external complaints with a serious response, they have a full-time spin operation working the social media. Instead of being responsive to legitimate Congressional inquiries, they either spin carefully crafted lies, or simply stonewall.

TSA knows that they are the most disliked agency in the Federal government, and they simply don't care.

InkUnderNails

Your use of universal derogatory accusations to address problems that may be indeed be present among part of a population is indicative of the attitude among some TSO's that "everyone" in certain populations, whether it is FlyerTalk troublemakers or passengers as terrorists, are equally guilty of some perceived intent or behavior just because they are member of that population.

You have found yourself in the position of displaying the same bias of which we are accused.

PhoenixRev

Then why did you make the remark of "'Rubbing genitals'... that's nice"? Either you were being sarcastic (and taking issue with the idea that the TSOs do rub genitals) or you think rubbing genitals is, indeed, a nice thing.

So far, the TSA has called the scanners a variety of things from "scanners" to "WBI" to "AIT." None of which fully describe what the machines do. Nude-o-scope is a far better and more descriptive term than anything the TSA has provided.

But beyond that, even if we called them whatever the TSA wanted us to call them, that agency has no interest in listening to what anyone says. I will remind you that this is the same agency that absolutely refused to even show up for a Congressional hearing unless they were assured they would not have to sit near people who were critical of their agency. (I can provide you the link to the hearing if you doubt me.)

That is the type of arrogance that tells me the TSA believes they and they alone have all the answers and any criticism is chalked up to reprobates who don't know that they the only ones that are keeping planes from falling out of the skies.