Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19265549)

I never said you twisted my words, I merely clarified the point I was making.

As far as the video, his answer could have been taken differently based on the questions before. The vid is only 22 seconds and cuts off as soon as he says "yes", he could have been responding to the questioning of (paraphrasing here) "does this make us safer", as opposed to the "this is retaliatory for the water". The problem with little sound bites like this is you have no context, no preamble to set the scene, and no follow up after this little snippet. I could talk to someone for 5 minutes and run a recorder and stop it any time I wanted to where it makes my point or makes it look like you answered a question about one thing, when you were actually answering something else entirely. Without the full recording, I am willing to say this is a wash, and not the watershed point you are trying to make. At first, I thought the exact same thing you (evidently) do. Then I listened to it a couple more times and I am pretty confident the rest of what he was saying was "yes, it does make you safer". I could also be completely wrong, it would not be the first time, nor the last time. Without the full video to give context to the comment, it is not something I am willing to give the credence to it that you are - that is simply my opinion based on what is there.

Now that I have said that, if the TSO on the video is actually saying that they are doing this simply as a retaliation for previous interactions (as a punitive measure or just to harrass), then they need to be disciplined according to the regs, with little in the way of mercy.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner (Post 19247488)

I don't follow. A "risk based" approach, by definition, allows "security holes" because it operates on a probabilistic basis by prioritizing potential threats. Part of such a scene is an acknowlegement that you can't catch everything.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19266450)

The person who posted the vid had this to say in part:



I have no reason to doubt this persons account but I do have plenty of reason to question the honesty and integrity of all TSA employees given the on going illegal acts of those employees.

These accounts from many travelers about their TSA experience tells me where the problem lies and it is not with the public.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105000289/...omplaints-2010

So tell us, what is the TSA procedure for a person who consumes a beverage instead of letting TSA test it?

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19269781)

I am not questioning the veracity, or the statements made by the person that posted the video. I simply am not willing to give it the credence that you are.

I am certain that some of the accounts of things done by TSA are true (not just in that scribd article), I am also equally certain that there are stories out there that are not even remotely what has happened. One thing to consider is that every story has 3 sides (Extremes album anyone? Anyone?). Essentially the two sides and what actually happened (which is most often a combination of both sides). While I think we at TSA could do a better job of receiving and addressing complaints/comments, I also recognize that jumping off the deep end because Dave from North Dakota says on their blog that TSO A at LAX raped them in the checkpoint (without any kind of investigatory follow up) is a recipe for disaster. I want the complaints addressed properly, not snap judgements based solely on an anonymous (or sort of anonymous) complaint on blogs something like that - they are simply too easy to set up, fake or simply lie about. Valid complaints should be effectively addressed, and the person making the complaint should be contacted and advised that action has been taken. Invalid complaints should be tossed into file 13 where they belong.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19270150)

I asked what TSA procedure was if a person consumed a beverage instead of letting TSA test that beverage, you seem to have missed that.

TSA has been remarkably ineffective in investigating complaints. I have filed two, one at FLL and one at DFW. Try as I might I received no resolution of the issues. So waiting for TSA to do the investigation will lead to a dead end. TSA seems interested only in deflecting issues instead of addressing them. My experience seems to be common when dealing with TSA based on available information.

This is why the public cannot rely on TSA to step up and investigate itself. Signs of corruption at TSA are so clear I don't see how any person can deny them.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270171)

If that situation occurs, then I in my job capacity am to notify the STSO.

I have already stated there is room for improvement on the part of TSA when it comes to addressing complaints/comments.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19270222)

Do you really believe that a person could consume a magical explosive liquid and that would not render it harmless or cause immediate gastric expulsion?

TSA could certainly do no worse investigating complaints since TSA does nothing now.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19265549)

Now that I have said that, if the TSO on the video is actually saying that they are doing this simply as a retaliation for previous interactions (as a punitive measure or just to harrass), then they need to be disciplined according to the regs, with little in the way of mercy.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19270150)

TSA has been remarkably ineffective

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270349)

My belief in such a substance is of no consequence in this situation because I am not aware of the entire situation. Did the individual take the item from a TSO forcefully, did they enter the bag it was contained in after being told not to, did they do something that is against the SOP and requires a specific response? That is the funny little thing about context, we have no idea what brought these folks to this 22 second snippet of film. There could be other things in play.

I disagree, not all complaints are ignored or not investigated, I have seen complaints addressed on a first hand basis. I have seen resolutions that were not satisfactory from the viewpoint of the passenger, satisfactory from the viewpoint of the passenger and mutually satisfactory on the part of TSA and the passenger. Not all resolutions done by the book will result in happiness or even satisfaction on the part of the passenger - that is like 100% security, it simply is not something that can be obtained. This does not mean that there shouldn't be the effort to obtain it, simply that people have to realize that 100% satisfaction over complaints is not something that can be done.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270349)

My belief in such a substance is of no consequence in this situation because I am not aware of the entire situation. Did the individual take the item from a TSO forcefully, did they enter the bag it was contained in after being told not to, did they do something that is against the SOP and requires a specific response? That is the funny little thing about context, we have no idea what brought these folks to this 22 second snippet of film. There could be other things in play.

Originally Posted by T-the-B (Post 19270356)

If this was a retaliatory detention the discipline should be federal prosecution for denying a citizen's civil rights under color of law, followed by a civil suit.

I've heard several self-identified TSA employees on this forum speak eloquently about the need to treat passengers with courtesy and respect and the need to follow proper procedure and the law. Unfortunately they appear to be a distinct minority within the TSA ranks.

Today a single rogue TSA employee can effectively detain a passenger with no warrant, no probable cause and no suspicion; a single rogue TSA employee can seize any item from a passenger; a single TSA employee can delay a passenger and cause him to miss a flight; and today those things can be done with impunity. The majority of TSA employees will only begin to be careful to follow the law when they see a few colleagues led away in handcuffs for inflicting punitive detentions, illegal searches and child sexual battery upon the traveling public.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19270723)

I asked a very simple direct question: "Do you really believe that a person could consume a magical explosive liquid and that would not render it harmless or cause immediate gastric expulsion?"

I didn't ask about circumstances or anything else. You seem unwilling to step up and speak directly to the question and attempt to confuse the issue with none related matters.

My personal experience with the TSA complaint and resolution process is that TSA does not investigate complaints. Please show some specific evidence that I am wrong. In fact find the resolution to a complaint I filed at DFW against a TSA employee who I thought was going to strike me.

Then I will have some faith in your statements.

Originally Posted by T-the-B (Post 19270754)

You make a very good point. Understanding the context is very important.

Let me propose a scenario and ask you to tell me how it a) should play out according to the applicable law and regulations and b) how it is most likely to play out.

The scenario:Questions:

I would appreciate answers based on what the law and regulations call for and also what you think the answers would be based on the level of training and professionalism of the typical TSA employee.

Much of the frustration that I and others have with TSA is the lack of published rules and inconsistent treatment by various TSA employees. This creates an impression that, at best, TSA employees are "making it up as they go" or, at worst engage in arbitrary pettiness. I appreciate your contributions here. You seem to sincerely desire to foster a productive conversation between TSA and passengers. Specific answers, that help passengers know what to expect would go a long way towards easing the tension between TSA and the traveling public.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270965)

Any other information past that would be delving into SSI, and trust me, I hate uttering that phrase as much as you hate hearing it.:mad:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270965)

Sadly I have to go with the same answer I gave Boggie. Per SOP, I am to contact the STSO and inform them of the situation. Any other information past that would be delving into SSI, and trust me, I hate uttering that phrase as much as you hate hearing it.:mad:

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19270965)

I answered you with what I am to do per SOP - notify my STSO. :