Originally Posted by halls120 (Post 19239249)

No one is saying that the investigation should "jump to conclusions." I simply have little confidence that an in house investigation will hold senior people accountable for their role in crafting a policy that led to line TSO misconduct.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 19239749)

The public has a right to know the degree of corruption in government agencies and with TSA doing the invedtigation we will never know the whole story. Tsa, the corrupt investigating the corrupt.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 19240796)

The concern here is multi-faceted.

TSOs and LEOs have come forward to say that there was racial profiling (which is a fancy Newspeak term for persecuting people based on their race rather than on any kind of legitimate evidence, cause, or suspicion).

We're concerned that this profiling is mandated by the secret policies outlined in secret documents which are not available for us (the public) to review. You can deny it all you want, but until those documents come out, there is no way to prove that racial profiling is not an official part of TSA's SOP.

We're also concerned that, even if there is no official policy of racial profiling, it may be an unofficial, unspoken policy, encouraged in a quiet wink-wink manner by TSA management in BOS, and either not known or tolerated or even encouraged by TSA higher management.

We're concerned that the entire BDO or enhanced interrogation pilot program in place at BOS is inherently flawed. These programs may have a built-in racial, cultural, gender, or age bias, or the implementation of the programs may be inherently flawed by the biases of those who created them, or the programs may be inherently flawed in that they don't compensate for possible inherent bias on the part of individual BDOs.

And we're concerned that an investigation of TSA by TSA may cut loose some scapegoats - a few bad apples - while not addressing the actual problems that caused the racial profiling in the first place, because TSA's primary aim in this investigation is not to solve the actual problem, but to address the public-relation problem alone.

So, even if we do hear of some folks hitting the bricks, I won't be satisfied with that unless the investigation is conducted by objective third-parties outside of DHS, or the entire interrogation and BDO programs are eliminated.

Scratch that. I won't be satisfied till those programs are eliminated. Period. There is no justification for them, and they are far too dangerous to allow them to continue.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19244088)

I understand what you are saying, I just do not necessarily share that point of view. Every investigation that I have seen first hand, reached a conclusion that was right and just according to not just the regulHations, but mostly the spirit of the regulations as well.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19244088)

Point taken.



I understand what you are saying, I just do not necessarily share that point of view. Every investigation that I have seen first hand, reached a conclusion that was right and just according to not just the regulations, but mostly the spirit of the regulations as well.



I understand your concerns, and hope that when the investigation is completed, the results can allay some of those fears. I have voiced before that I take the position that, if I have done something wrong, whether by mistake or ignorance, the best process is to admit the mistake, learn from it, and move forward. Large institutions do not always subscribe to that point of view for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which involves legal reasonings. I hope that when the investigation is over, they at least publish the basics - "this is what we found substantiated, this is what we found to be false and here is what we have done to rectify it". From the POV of TSA, that may not be feasible, again for a myriad of reasons, although it would be better PR to do so.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 19244249)

On another note, please don't take my dislike of your employer personally. I have found you to be the most reasonable, logical, and civil of the TSOs who post on FT, and I hope that you don't take our disagreement and my vehement dislike of your employer and its policies as any sort of personal attack on you.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19201226)

I have never been issued a quota like they indicate in the articles, and I have never gone into a bag looking for anything other than possible threat items. IF something illegal is found during that process, per SOP we report it to the local LEOs.

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 19221541)

I think the real problem here is that TSA employees, as public employees, are obligated to report when they suspect a crime is being committed --- even if that crime is unrelated to their duties. This isn't without precedent in other sectors of public life. For example, my pastor told me about a member of his former congregation who, as a firefighter, couldn't attend any service where open candles were being lit, because in that jurisdiction, open candles technically violated the fire code. And, in general, having public servants turning a blind eye to crimes being committed presents its own problems.

On the whole, I agree that administrative searches tend to look like warrantless searches for contraband --- or, at least, have the same effect. I'm just not sure how you navigate between those two alternatives, neither of which is ideal.

Originally Posted by Caradoc (Post 19222008)

Another issue is that many of them are too stupid to understand what is a crime, and what is not.

Like traveling with $10,000 in cash. At least one TSA employee was rather insistent that it was a crime...

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19222782)

I can understand that point of view, and it has merit, but currently the regulations given to TSOs contradict that by indicating we are to report the other illegal items we find incidental to the original search item.

I can't contradict what is said here either. We are simply told we are to report them to local authorities to deal with.

Again, understand and see the merit in your statements. This is a policy question that none of the front line employees (like me) are going to be able to change.

The distinction in your position is that we are instructed to do this as part of our training. I understand the point that many of the folks here make that it is not a part of WEI it shouldn't be reported, but at this time, the SOP says we are to report it.

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 19225138)

It's not uncommon in other public-sector positions. A good friend of mine is a public school teacher. They're required by law to report suspected child abuse, with serious criminal consequences if they fail to do so. This mandatory reporting requirement applies 24/7; if they suspect abuse happening in their apartment complex, or at church, or in public, they have to report it there, too.

So ... does being a TSO rise to that level? Clearly, the SOP says it does. Should it? Opinions will obviously vary.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19228962)

I am a BDO, and have never been given a quota, or even a hint of a quota of any nature. The program (in my experience) does not work the way indicated in the articles. We are specifically told and taught "Referrals are based on specific observed behaviors only, not on one's appearance, race, ethnicity or religion." We are also taught to not look specifically for contraband, only to report it if discovered while looking for WEI. Anything that is published contrary to that is either misinformation, or someone doing something wrong - I do not know what is going on in BOS, but if the reported stories are correct, then many of the things I have read are not being done according to SOP.

I have also heard dissenting opinions on that from individuals much more familiar with constitutional law than either one of us, so again, barring a change in vision by senior management or a court ruling, it appears we are at an impasse.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 19244211)

Isn't the above post contradicting an earlier post where it was mentioned something about the wrong people often getting punished as a result of investigations?

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 19244249)

Meanwhile, the inherent flaws in the programs will not be addressed, and the interrogation program at BOS will eventually be rolled out nation-wide, probably very quietly and only a few airports at a time, and the racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases of the various interrogators will continue to play into their LEO referrals and their enhanced screening referrals.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 19244249)

I understand what you're saying, but I have zero confidence that TSA will ever take the high road.

Yes, when this investigation is over, there will be some sacrificial lambs who are given their walking papers, and TSA will put out a press release stating that some bad apples went far beyond what they were instructed to do, so the remaining apples will be retrained and new rules will be put forth - SSI, of course, so the public will never see them - banning racial profiling. The actual IG report will also be SSI - after all, it will have to include some of the super secret details of the enhanced interrogation program, which terr'ists could then use to play the system - so we'll never see it, either.

Meanwhile, the inherent flaws in the programs will not be addressed, and the interrogation program at BOS will eventually be rolled out nation-wide, probably very quietly and only a few airports at a time, and the racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases of the various interrogators will continue to play into their LEO referrals and their enhanced screening referrals.

On another note, please don't take my dislike of your employer personally. I have found you to be the most reasonable, logical, and civil of the TSOs who post on FT, and I hope that you don't take our disagreement and my vehement dislike of your employer and its policies as any sort of personal attack on you.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19244833)

What you state is a possibility, there is also the possibility that the program is scrapped and started all over again, or is done away with, or that they find out what actually happened and take the proper steps. Whichever situation rises to the top, I think that the direction the security focus is heading for the foreseeable future is of a Risk Based style of approach - which has its positives and negatives (just like all the other security programs out there). One positive that may result from this is more training for the BDOs, which should be better for all involved, because better trained individuals tend to make better decisions. Don't get me wrong, while at TSA, I have done more training (even before the BDO job) than I have done since I left the Army, and that is saying something. I have been accused of being an eternal optimist (many times by folks here, but it was not nearly that nice of a phrase), but I like to think that the right thing will surface in most situations. That does not happen as often as I would like, but I would like to think that it does happen, many do not share this viewpoint, and that is good, it helps to keep the system honest, and force changes when the system breaks down or is not reflective of the public conscience.

Logical and reasonable people can disagree in fundamental ways and still have discussions about those disagreements. I take no disagreement with me as a personal affront unless it is phrased as such (and even then, I tend to simply ignore the insult and look for what I can learn from the statements tied to them). I appreciate the kind words, and look forward to discussions in the future, and if I ever post something that strikes you as personal, I hope that you would let me know, because these posts are not intended as such.
:D

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19244833)

What you state is a possibility, there is also the possibility that the program is scrapped and started all over again, or is done away with, or that they find out what actually happened and take the proper steps. Whichever situation rises to the top, I think that the direction the security focus is heading for the foreseeable future is of a Risk Based style of approach - which has its positives and negatives (just like all the other security programs out there). One positive that may result from this is more training for the BDOs, which should be better for all involved, because better trained individuals tend to make better decisions. Don't get me wrong, while at TSA, I have done more training (even before the BDO job) than I have done since I left the Army, and that is saying something. I have been accused of being an eternal optimist (many times by folks here, but it was not nearly that nice of a phrase), but I like to think that the right thing will surface in most situations. That does not happen as often as I would like, but I would like to think that it does happen, many do not share this viewpoint, and that is good, it helps to keep the system honest, and force changes when the system breaks down or is not reflective of the public conscience.

Logical and reasonable people can disagree in fundamental ways and still have discussions about those disagreements. I take no disagreement with me as a personal affront unless it is phrased as such (and even then, I tend to simply ignore the insult and look for what I can learn from the statements tied to them). I appreciate the kind words, and look forward to discussions in the future, and if I ever post something that strikes you as personal, I hope that you would let me know, because these posts are not intended as such.
:D

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 19244833)

. . . I think that the direction the security focus is heading for the foreseeable future is of a Risk Based style of approach - which has its positives and negatives (just like all the other security programs out there).

Originally Posted by halls120 (Post 19246383)

I just returned from a flight that routed me through CDG. There, just like at other airports in the EU, such as AMS, CPH, BRU, and MUC, security is professional, low key, and non confrontational. No ineffective AIT machines, no barking employees, no long lines, no shoe carnival, and passengers being treated with respect. In other words, the polar opposite of the TSA experience. And guess what - airplanes aren't falling out of the skies departing from those airports.

While you are one of the few sane people from TSA posting here, you are working for an agency whose very existence is an affront to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by chollie (Post 19246664)

What I find particularly fascinating about security at large international airports (outside the US) is that there's no huge proliferation of taped loops, signs, large-screen videos and roving, barking security people shouting instructions (all of which are bought at inflated prices with taxpayer dollars in the US).

But somehow my waits are always shorter and there isn't the sort of last-minute mess as pax approach the belt that TSA says we'd have in the US without all the signs/shouting/taped loops/TVs.

And in many of the large international airports, there are far more languages being spoken (or not) at any given time than in many US airports. Yet somehow people know what to do.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 19246864)

The largest part of the mess at US airports is because of the TSA's ridiculous idea of "security", while a substantial part of the mess at the same airports is due to passenger cabin baggage policies being more "generous" at US airlines than with most foreign airlines.