Especially when it's readily apparent that the ex-military types who ended up in the TSA were the ones who got involved in incidents like Abu Ghraib.

(It would be nice to see the TSA held to the UCMJ, though. Especially given that we're involved in this "War On Terror," and TSA employees continue to abandon their posts to steal things from passengers. Prosecution to the fullest extent under Article 113 would be appropriate, I think.)

Ron, no one said they were supposed to detect prohibited items. What has been said over and over again is that they're detecting "anomalies" that don't exist, and defeating the stated purpose of having them (as any TSO will tell you): "They're here to keep us from having to touch you." The claim that they're working properly is akin to Mike Valentine's claim about his radar detector: false alerts aren't false alerts; they're the machine doing what it's supposed to do.

Don't do that. The rules are flawed and you're blind to that. Instead, look at it as a civilian, untainted by indoctrination into the TSA culture. Is it revolting to you to see people being patted down? Hey, here's a fun idea: opt out. Don't tell them that you're a TSO, just opt out of the scanner both ways. See how they respond, and see if your answers (or refusal to answer, if you're feeling frisky) to their inquiries about why anyone could ever possibly want to opt out of their perfectly safe and private machine gets you an overly-zealous screening.

Who died and made you a Constitutional lawyer? Unlike yourself, there are actually people who hold a law degree on this forum, and some people who are closely related to Constitutional lawyers, who very well understand those rights and the exemptions to them. Those people tend to believe that the TSA's actions far overstep the "administrative search" doctrine, and dive into the murky realm of unconstitutional.

Opinions are subjective. They are inherently neither right nor wrong. Your claim to understand Constitutional law, however, is wrong. TSOs are not trained in Constitutional law, and whenever one claims that they know my rights better than they do, that they are allowed by the Constitution to perform the search they're performing, or (my favorite) that all rights are surrendered while one is in the secure zone, it makes me laugh and cry on the inside.

So tell me, since you understand civil liberties so flawlessly, what university did you get your law degree from? I ask only because I'm about to finish studies for mine, and the "understanding of civil rights" that you claim is, frankly, laughable. Your understanding of civil rights seems to be limited to parroting off what your three-striper has told you.

Not really sure where else to post this, but it is a comment left by an alleged screener on another forum regarding management and morale. I guess it also speaks a little bit to the military mentality. I dunno, just thought I'd share.

Good points, ND Sol.

We had an excellent 'trip report' from one of our 'good' TSOs on this forum a few months ago (IIRC, it was HSVTSO Dean). He went to ATL for a few days training. He actually worked at the checkpoint (I believe he even told us which one) and gave an excellent, thoughtful (as usual) account of what he saw.

I think it may have been the first time he experienced the barking first-hand. Apparently they don't bark at his airport (lucky guy), yet they still manage to get the job done safely and professionally.

I have zero sympathy for this TSO and many of his co-workers.

Change a few words in his complaint, and he has described the experience he and his co-workers push on pax every single day.

"they are constantly looking at the cameras (which are for recording everything from when a passengers bag is open until its closed. They tell us that in case someone claims you stole from them we can have proof of exactly what happened during the search of their bag)"

So? What do you have to hide?


"find any reason to reprimand, discipline, punish us so they can show the bigger boss that they are handling the situation"

Yup, just try politely asking a TSO if he/she is sure that NEXUS is not a valid ID.


"They are good people who are going to be screwed"

Innocent pax whose BP/ID are copied and recorded for a 'report', often just for asking for a supervisor, information that will probably end up on Nappy's 'domestic extremist' database. People who are deliberately delayed to cause them to miss their flights. People who face retaliatory secondaries. People who are threatened with the very real threat: DY...T or worse, the 'watch list'. Good people are being 'screwed' at the checkpoint everyday and they aren't all wearing blue uniforms.


"who wants to hire someone who was terminated from the federal government?"

Given the reasons many TSO's have been fired, is it any wonder an employer would be reluctant to hire them?

I know this is old, but I am just now seeing it and had to reply.

I am completely willing to dehumanize every TSO because of their "uniform" and their job. They are beneath me and worthy of less respect that most other people in the world. There are literally THOUSANDS of jobs out there that don't involve trampling on the freedoms Americans are entitled to. Go find one of those. Even if you aren't qualified for any other job (which is possible), please understand that there are more important things at stake here than you feeding your family.

Come'on lovely15, don't be so coy. Tell us what you really think.

Mad_Max_Esq, thanks for your posting of the screener's work description. It makes me think that to some extent the screeners are reflecting onto the passengers the abuse they get from above. It also reveals some common ground between screeners and passengers, such as:

Actually, that is exactly what the individual that wrote this post is saying.

Opting out is actually a pretty good idea, but the initial flight will be out of my own airport so they are going to know who I am. After that, well I�d say you have a pretty good idea there.

There are those who �claim� to have law degree�s. Just as I �claim� to be a TSO. And with the anonymous nature of the internet there is no way to absolutely verify those claims.

In any case, I have taken the time more than once to provide the relevant case law on the subjects we so often discuss here. And just as often that information is ignored. A claim of a civil liberty that does not exist is not enough to bring it into being. One can claim to have the right to have sex with any person they find attractive, but that claim does not make it so (just an example people, you can stop frothing now). Just as it is governments prevue to conduct screening on everyone who wishes to travel by commercial airline. And again, just as it is your right to avoid such screening by choosing another mode of travel. But I cant think of a mode of travel that does not have its government oversight somehow, maybe you can help.

Opinions are indeed exactly as you describe. And they come in many different forms. SCOTUS provides opinions on the law, and their opinions become the law. A lawyer provides his opinion in a court room, and his client either wins or does not. Most things are formed by opinion. And opinions are formed by things.

The most interesting thing about opinions is that some are �informed�, and some are not.

You wont find me making any of the mistakes you mention. I know your rights, and I know the laws under which TSA operates. Most here give the impression that they know neither, and are happy in their ignorance. Happy enough to give their opinion, as uninformed as that opinion may be.

My only assumption was that I thought the TSA was attempting to find prohibited items. Apparently "anomalies" is the goal. Well, at least we agree that the TSA has spent a $160,000,000 on machines that do not detect, and are not designed to detect, prohibited items.

[Apply Nomex coveralls. Ready]

Actually, this is pretty standard procedure for a lot of inspection systems.

1. Determine if an anomaly exists.
   
2. Determine what the anomaly actually is.
   
3. Activate decision tree based on what is found.
   
4. Apply corrective actions as needed.

It is how machines are inspected using any number of electronic detection techniques. Why? It is well know that the detection systems are only good at creating alarms. Resolution of the alarms is often best done by a human analyst. It requires advanced skills and experience to effectively evaluate the nature and severity of a detected anomaly.

Oh, well. We did pretty good using TSA procedures up to Step 2.

Oh, I don't know, Ron. It's not really that hard is it? There's a basic assumption in our culture that strangers don't put their hands on your genitals without FREE consent if you've given no cause for this. This basic perception and desire to be unmolested in that way by government agents was underlined in the bill of rights in the US Constitution. The Constitution did not establish this right--it exists by our nature--but it did formalize the behavior citizens expected of their government and put them on notice.

The courts may or may not live up to their obligation to uphold this legal contract on our behalf, but it is a fundamental violation of civilized human behavior and violates the persons on whom such molestation is visited. No court pronouncement can make it right to molest people like this for no cause.

Until your agency showed up two years ago with its sexual molestation program, ALL other government agencies had, and still have, no problem living within the probable cause limitations on feeling over citizens' genitalia.

I find it passing strange that a TSA clerk, whose qualifications to acquire and hold his job could just about be met by a doorstop or a chimpanzee, would have the brass tacks to call anyone, ANYONE, ignorant. Just about anyone on this forum has job requirements LIGHT YEARS more demanding than a TSA clerk's.

As I've already said, citizens have a basic and correct expectation that as they go about their BUSINESS, which includes flying, they will not be compelled to let strangers touch their sex organs without cause. TSA is simply wrong here and before it's over, they will be forced to live within the same limitations as police do when they search PERSONS. Politically, it will continue to be unacceptable.

I'm not arguing the legal case here, as PTravel has many posts on the legal aspects of this, has legal competence in this area, and has skewered your legal position on this too many times to count.

Not really. The hardware has a difficult time determining real anomalies, as opposed to pleats in skirts, creases in underwear, beaded sweat on the skin under the clothing, et cetera.

Of course, once a false anomaly has been "detected," going to Step 2 for resolution is no improvement.

Tell you what, Ron: you tell me the airport you work at and I will provide you with my Texas Bar number.

You may have, but I just don't recall you providing "the relevant case law" that hasn't already been discussed before. It's not ignored as it has been vetted on this forum previously.

Exhibit A of Ron knowing our rights: "it is against the law to take $10,000 or more in cash out of the country. Has been for a long time. You can disagree with my other statement as much as you like, the fact is that I am correct." This was not a one-time occurrence on Ron's part.

Our offer still stands: If you give us the name of the airports and your connections, we can help you out on whether you will have to leave airside to make your connection. Otherwise, are you planning on walking back out to the checkpoints to observe what is happening just from the sterile side? Even that would be only half of the story.

Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread?

Actually the machinery inspection systems that I work with have exactly the same problem. They are designed to detect elements in the data that do not appear to match the expected elements in the data. Many times the anomalies are normal things and of no concern. That does not make them false positives as they are often called here. More specifically they are data anomalies that require resolution.

That is where I come in. I examine the inspection system indications and make take additional data. I determine exactly what caused the system to create the alarm. If it is not a problem in the machine to be corrected, I forget about it and it is no problem. If the data is truly indicative of a problem, the following steps are put into action. I determine the exact nature of the problem, its severity, an approximate time to failure and the repairs needed to correct it.

But, therein lies the problem. My test subjects are machines. They neither know nor care that I am doing additional probing. They have no concern that the anomaly generated may create the impression that they have criminal intent. They do not have places to go, people to see and flights to catch. They are unfeeling and uncaring.

Applying the same principles to people creates a new set of difficulties beyond just determining what the anomaly is. The people become suspects. They are subjected to additional testing and probing. They are delayed when a delay can be detrimental and even costly. The are, after all, people and not machines.

The system is designed to resolve anomalies as if the tested is a machine with no cares, feelings, or other complicating factors. We become systems for analysis. We lose our humanity and become objects to be inspected.

The system as such attacks human dignity and modesty. It insults our sense of what is the right way and the wrong way to treat other human beings with emotions and feelings.

The gropes, pat downs, ETD swabs, extra bag checks and other dehumanized procedures are the result a procedural system designed to work reliably with inanimate and non-human tested equipment and devices. It fails miserably to address basic human emotion when applied to people.