Per TSORon's Second New Thread Request: Non-Prohibited Items
 

A discussion was underway in the Practical Travel Safety Issues about the TSA discovering non-prohibited items and the requirements therefor. TSORon is now of the opinion that we should no longer have that discussion there:

So again here we are per his request. To provide some background, here are the salient parts of those posts:

So here is his "response" and now my reply in this new thread:

First, what is your point? This appears to be a non sequitur. Second, you are the one that brought up "these things", not me. But to play your little game, how about cash, child pornography and illegal drugs.

Where did I say punish someone for a safety concern? First, we are talking about items that are not prohibited. Per the TSA, "prohibited items" are a safety concern. Non-prohibited items are not an air travel safety concern according to the TSA. So that is your first failure in your comment. Second, the question related to the failure to report non-prohibited items and the ramifications thereof. You continue to state that TSOs are required to report "these things" that are non-prohibited items and for which you have not been trained by the TSA to detect. The issue, therefore, is what the ramifications are for failing to report, not the opposite. As such, that is your second failure in your comment.

Are you admitting that the TSA does not train you to recognize "these things", which are non-prohibited items? Once again, you state that the management directive requires you to report "these things", but what are the consequences if you fail to do so?

Perhaps the words of FlyingHoustonian in the other thread are apropos:

Ronnie's one comment speaks volumes about why the TSA gets away with this:

They have never been forced to state what is a threat and what isn't. I think the cop community calls this the "elephant behind the bookcase" situation. When real cops conduct real warranted searches, they have to state what they are looking for. If they say they are searching for elephants, they can't discover any evidence of a crime (the legal definition of "discover") in an area smaller than one would reasonable expect an elephant to be hidden.

The TSA has never been compelled to define the smallest prohibited item. Because of the benefit of their ability to search and define anything as a prohibited item, no law enforcement agency on the planet will stop them from doing the work they can't legally do. So, until compelled by law (not that the TSA would obey the law anyway), the smallest element in the known universe -- an atom of hydrogen -- can be determined to be a prohibited item. Since it's the smallest substance in the universe, it can be hidden anywhere in luggage or on an individual's body. This gives the TSA license to search anywhere, anybody, anytime.

The TSA has also never been compelled to articulate their reason for searching a bag or an individual. I simply can't believe that a clerk looking at x-ray images of carry-ons does not know what a joint, a bundle of cash or bag of drugs looks like. They never have had to justify a search beyond stating, "I think I saw something." There was one court case where the TSA had the stupidity to authorize the clerk herself to testify. (I think it was the case of the guys carrying a lot of credit cards or something.) The clerk admitted under oath that she had no security reason to search a large envelope. As I recall, the judge actually followed the law enough to throw out the evidence. You can bet that the TSA will ensure that no other clerk ever gets even close to a witness stand again, except as a defendant.

Geez -- I want out country back!

Tsoron, almost everything on the prohitited list is not a threat. When a person is placed in jail, their shoe laces and other "stringy" things are removed because shoes laces are a threat. So other than what courts have said are a threat, guns, bombs, incendiaries, everything else prohibited is pandering to airline unions and air lines.

Everyone else, some pre TSA cases indicate that screeners are not trained, nor permitted to look specifically for criminal activity, if found they reported it too police. Tsa personnel do not arrest powers nor do they have search warrants, by court order tsa searches are limited too guns, bombs, incendiaries, and if criminal activity is discovered it can be reported.

If you say so.

Since I've also had paperwork confiscated, as in the original thread, I'm wondering if TSORon can tell me exactly why it was confiscated.

Um, sorry...."surrendered".

Just pointing out that hydrogen atoms can be quite dangerous if handled improperly.

Everything's prohibited!!!!

Or...

Is that statement - and this:

completely ridiculous?!?

I was unaware we were playing a game. Does that mean that it has rules? @:-)

Cash: 1. Financing terrorism. 2. As concealment for prohibited items. 3. Put into a sock, some forms of cash make a very good bludgeon (you didn’t specify).

Kiddie porn: Really? We live in a civilized society where such is universally prohibited.

Illicit Drugs: 1. The sale of is commonly used to finance terrorism. I know Phil will have a coronary over that, but the facts are the facts. 2. Dispersed as a weapon on board an aircraft it could be used to disable the passengers as well as the crew, causing a catastrophic event. 3. Again, put it in a sock...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19447921-post39.html

I see where your error is. You are assuming that TSA expects us to rely only on our TSA training. This of course is not true, the TSA and the government in general realizes that people have their own personal histories and education, and as such those histories and education can be of use in our current positions (most companies are much more likely to hire someone with experience than those without). We are not automations, we come to the job with life experience just as you have done for your job. I do not need to be trained by TSA to recognize a grenade, or marijuana, I have personal experience with both. And in any case, even if I had no such experience I would be required to report anything that I cannot identify to a supervisor who hopefully can.

Should they train us on these things? Sorry, that decision is above my pay grade. Consequences are not mandated in the MD, or even spelled out for that matter. But it’s a part of my job, and as a good worker I am going to do my job.

FH is on my ignore list, so I don’t see what he writes. I like it that way.

Well now, lets just take a look at that list, shall we?

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informat...ohibited-items

Sharp Objects
Sporting Goods
Guns & Firearms
Tools
Martial Arts & Self Defense Items
Explosive & Flammable Materials, Disabling Chemicals & Other Dangerous Items

I’d say that most of those items are clearly a threat. TSA is not a prison, so we don’t really have a great deal of concern about passengers hanging themselves or garroting each other in the sterile area. Unless of course the beer has run out at the concession stand, then there may be some problems.

There is more about prohibited items at the link provided. Take a few minutes to read through it, you would be surprised how helpful it can be.

I was not there, you were. You tell us. Try not to leave to much out of the description of the events. I wouldn’t want someone to accuse you of slanting things in any particular direction.

Yeah -- they're elusive little buggers! Oh, the humanity!

1. Irrelevant to whether or not a passenger poses a specific threat to the flight they intend to board that day.

2. Anything can be used to conceal other things. So, why the specific emphasis on large sums of money, and not, say, large quantities of clothing? Or large quantities of other forms of paper, like books or magazines?

3. By that standard, anything I bring aboard could be turned into a bludgeon. Shall we simply ban all passenger's personal possessions aboard an aircraft?

I am hard pressed to think of a way that a passenger could use a photo of child pornography to hijack or destroy a commercial flight.

1. Selling drugs aboard an aircraft is not likely to cause an immediate threat to the safety of that particular flight.

2. The same could be said for legal drugs. Heck, there's enough alcohol aboard the aircraft in the catering supplies to fuel a nice IED. Why treat illicit drugs differently than legal ones?

3. Socks don't kill people; people kill people.

And, as I've pointed out to you before, your lack of TSA training on recognizing those items creates liability for you, if your reliance on your prior training leads to an incident. TSA will be quite happy to say "We never told Ron to treat [fill-in-the-blank] as a dangerous item", or, alternatively, "Ron should've known that [fill-in-the-blank] was dangerous." You'll be left hanging out to dry.

Oh, goody!

I can turn a pair of scissors (permitted item) into a pair of knives (prohibited item) in just a few seconds. Also, knitting needles are permitted, even though they can create extremely clean puncture wounds. (I know this a little too well.) Clearly, the prohibition on sharp objects is so vague as to be useless.

Because the little 8-inch bats that the Louisville Slugger company sells as trinkets pose such a threat to aviation that the Louisville TSA confiscates them at the checkpoint. (I know; I've transited Louisville and seen the great big bin of bats at the checkpoint.) "Sporting Goods" is so vague as to be useless.

We have no argument here.

Pray tell, what's the difference between a six-inch knife and a six-inch screwdriver? Both would be effective weapons --- but the knife is prohibited and the screwdriver is permitted. "Tools" is so vague as to be useless.

Again, we have no argument here.

From my spot in the cheap seats, it looks like TSA is trying to prohibit anything that "might" be used as a weapon, or a component of a weapon. But as anyone who's watched MacGuyver knows, virtually any object can become a vital component in a weapon.

And, in the meantime, because TSA instructs TSOs how to handle items you suspect might indicate a law being broken but have (at best) incidental relevance to commercial airline safety, TSOs end up being distracted from looking for the things that are actually a threat. And, as we've seen, many TSOs seem to interpret the instruction "don't look for this stuff, but tell us if you find it" as "look for this stuff and tell us about it". That line seems to be too fine for some TSOs to navigate successfully.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just ban socks then? After all, if any object can be put in a sock and used as a weapon, it would appear the sock is the bigger concern then - wouldn't it?

Ron, I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express anytime in the recent past, but you may want to have a discussion with an attorney to make sure that you completely understand the extents of your limited immunity from liability for your position. Typically, exceeding that which you are trained to do - even if it makes perfect common sense - can potentially remove you from the protection that you may be expecting. (See also JKHuggins' comments.)

What training? You were a failure at your Air Force job, self admitted mind you, that is not me talking but direct from your prior communication.

You said you only served 15 years and never made rank fast enough...?
No one does 15 years and gets out if they enjoy the service, which you said you did. You were either RIFted which competent people are not, or you were kicked out. You already said it was not medical. So which is it ron? Why didn't you retire? That is what led to your TSA job as you also said.

You ignore me because I proved you wrong in three straight threads and you had no debate knowledge (your feckless and profane PMs notwithstanding). I understand it can be tough out here in the big world actually looking for facts but share with us more about that training.

What AFSC did you have that gave you this awesome training?
'Tis a simple question even you can answer.

Besides, you don't ignore me on TU...or you don't know it...

Most of your non sequiturs and deflections have been well addressed by other posters, so I will focus more on on-topic specifics.

Ron, this thread is about the TSA discovering non-prohibited items and the requirements therefor. You were the one that wanted a new thread in a new forum to discuss this, but you don't want to directly answer the two questions posed, which were:

1. Has the TSA trained you to detect "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel (i.e. non-prohibited items)?

2. Are you aware of any TSO being reprimanded or worse for failing to report "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel and for which you have not been trained to detect (e.g. child pornography, illegal drugs)?

First, you keep on stating that I want to "punish someone for being wrong about a safety concern" and link back to a post. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the subject, but this is the opposite of what I was positing. The question is not whether a TSO is punished for reporting a safety concern, the question is whether a TSO has been punished for failing to report a non-prohibited item per the SOP/Management Directive? Is that so difficult to answer?

The reason I keep on asking this question (but yet continue not to receive a direct answer from you) is to illustrate the SOP/Management Directive's impotency in this regard. If no adverse repercussions arise from a failure on the part of a TSO to follow the SOP/Management Directive, then the language is basically ineffectual. You can't seem to acknowledge that basic construct.

Second, the TSA doesn't train you in identifying non-prohibited items that should be reported since they may be evidence of a crime. You can't seem to directly acknowledge this fact either. If the TSA did train you, then that would be tacit admission of the ability to go beyond the administrative search parameters for WEI, which would cause legal issues.

I do find it interesting to note that the TSA is looking for certain past experiences and you note your prior training "to recognize a grenade, or marijuana". The TSA does train you to recognize the former, but not the latter. Are you implying that during your hiring process, the TSA was interested in your ability to recognize illegal non-prohibited drugs? Are you implying that such a question even comes up during the hiring process? Are you implying that if two TSO equally-qualified candidates are being considered for one position, that the training in recognizing those drugs could be the deciding factor?

Seriously? It went on for 11 pages here.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...n-weapons.html

^^ Every time I approach a TSA checkpoint, I am alternatively disgusted and despondent at what we have allowed our government to do to us.

OT but these threads remind me of the old saying from George Bernard Shaw:

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

While I don't recall the specific years it was during the '80's and/or '90's that several programs were rolled out to reduce military force size..

One I recall was commonly called "Up or Out". Enlisted members could not reenlist if they did not hit certain promotion points during that enlistment. A lot of stagnant E-5 and E-6 hangers on were shown the door.

Some early outs were also offered but those people gave up a retirement check for a few bucks up front.

These programs were for the purpose of meeting force size requirements but a side effect was getting rid of lots of dead wood.

(bolding mine) I wear pants and underear when I play sports, so does this mean I can no longer wear pants or underwear when transiting the checkpoint?

Somehow it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that it is your job to detect "terrorists" or "terrorist-related crime".

Your job is to ensure that no one brings weapons, incendiaries, or explosives onto a plane. The courts have ruled this on numerous occasions, and thrown out evidence when TSOs exceed the scope of their duty by looking for cash or drugs.

I believe it was just a week ago (Oct 5) that the George case (Arabic flashcards) was heard before the Third Circuit. But I fully expect that TSOs playing 'language and document police' and trampling the First Amendment will be slapped down, too.

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with TSA. I have no doubt that in this case, Ron is not alone - there are probably thousands of TSA clerks who believe that they are charged with enforcing general criminal laws of the United States. That they don't have this responsibility or authority is apparently a concept too difficult for them to grasp.

Other than the opium crop in Afghanistan, I am not aware of (and certainly have never read about at any classification level) any direct and recurring connection between drug trafficking, cash transactions, and financing terrorism. For that matter, the opium crop in Afghanistan finances practically the entire country.

This gets back to my earlier point that it's in the TSA's best interests to never define what is a threat and what isn't, because it gives them unprecedented extra-constitutional powers to search and seize practically anything they want for whatever reason they want.

Why do people bother to "debate" TSORon? It is such a waste of time. The pig-in-the-mud analogy is quite apt. There is simply nothing to be gained-- you will not convince him because he always knows better and is always right, and even when he is provably wrong, he still thinks he is right in insists he is. It is depressing to know my tax dollars pay his wages, and there are enough depressing things in life without taking extra time out of my day to have the fact that my tax dollars being pissed away to pay people like TSORon shoved in my face. These are good threads to avoid unless you like wasting time.

I am with you on this. I won't waste the energy it would take to respond to this gentleman - he is not worth it.

Why are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney debating each other three times this month? It's not like either of them are going to change the other's point of view on the issues of the day.

The reason they're debating each other is because other people are listening. Their real audience is not the person at the other podium, but the millions of silent listeners.

In the same way ... I won't speak for anyone else, but one reason I engage in conversation (or "debate", if you will) here is because of the millions thousands dozens of others who silently read these discussions and might be persuaded to agree with me.

Also, it helps me to refine my arguments; even if I'm right, I might need some help in explaining those ideas. There are fallacious arguments on both sides of these debates, and I won't claim that I'm immune from falling for the bad arguments of the anti-TSA crowd.

Those are my reasons. I'll let others speak to their own reasons.

I agree with the above poster. The more he is kept engaged, the more it allows others an opportunity to understand some truly perverted thinking (not sexually perverted) on the part of those who believe they are keeping us safe.

Not so. I am fully aware of what my job entails, its purpose, and how it affects terrorism. My job is, simply put, deterrence. Nothing more.

Every terrorist out there (one’s with a fully working brain that is) know that to commit another act like those committed on 9/11/2001, they must run a gauntlet of processes both public and not, specifically designed to detect their efforts. I am a part of the “public” process. Other people and other agencies make up the other parts of both the public as well as the non-public parts.

I just love it when a non-member of the TSA is so willing to tell me my job. Unless you are willing to admit that you are a TSO then you have no idea what my job is, or what it takes to get it done.

I suspect that they will as well. I personally believe that they were operating outside of established procedures, but that decision of course is well above my pay grade. Yours as well I suspect.

You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion, or not as you choose. If you choose not to then please bypass them and refust to comment. Honest, it wont hurt my feelings one bit.

Your job is to find WEI - nothing more.

It could be that one goal of the TSA as an agency is to deter terrorists but that is not YOUR job at the checkpoint.

It COULD be that what you do at the checkpoint serves to deter a dumb terrorist but it is only an outcome of your charge to find WEI.

And for those terrorist with a working brain would they not be smart enough to pick a target of opportunity that they could successfully attack?

How hard is it to imagine a TSA Checkpoint that is bogged down as is so typical because of the TSA procedures in place today?

I honestly believe that if a terrorist organization wanted to conduct an attack they would do so, TSA or no TSA.

TSA is just an eight billion dollar drain on the country for very little true gain.

Most TSOs have no clue as to what their jobs entail. Cop wanna-be s, nothing more. More like mall cops forced upon us in airports.

Best thing is to simply ignore TSORon's posts altogether. Every time you respond to his silly posts, it's like waving a steak in front of a pitbull...just making i worse.

I'm not sure that it is. Your employer states (as of 14 September 2012):

"Protection" and "deterrence" are not synonyms. At best, "deterrence" is a subset of "protection" --- in which case, your job is quite a bit more than "simply put, deterrence".

At least, that's how I read it.

For those wanting to know about Ron, "the Muse of Platte" see here: (This is a direct Ron quote)
http://forums.talkerfly.com/post/sho...&postcount=445
Our Friend Ron / \ And it seems tongue was not in cheek...

You can read many of Ron's musings here:
http://www.travelunderground.org/ind...e-platte.1326/


reposting ron, since you haven't answered yet please take your time:

What training? You were a failure at your Air Force job, self admitted mind you, that is not me talking but direct from your prior communication here. In fact you never answered about your Air Force failures but to say you are great foster parent...? Just share with the group.

You said you only served 15 years thus it seems never made rank fast enough...?
No one does 15 years and gets out if they enjoy the service, which you said you did. You were either RIFted which competent people are not, or you were kicked out. You already said it was not medical. So which is it ron? Why didn't you retire? That is what led to your TSA job as you also said.

You ignore me because I proved you wrong in three straight threads and you had no debate knowledge (your feckless and profane PMs notwithstanding). I understand it can be tough out here in the big world actually looking for facts but share with us more about that training.

What AFSC did you have that gave you this awesome training?
'Tis a simple question even you can answer.

Besides, you don't ignore me on TU...or you don't know it...

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Till you put your money where your mouth is I call baloney, bologna and bull cookies. This question has been asked more then a few times for years but never answered. You are right most of your co-workers dont have any training but that doesnt stop them from incorrectly identify non WEI and saying they arent allowed, making rules up on medications, practicing medicine without a license and/or trying to stick there hand in the cookie jar and steal controlled substances for I have witnessed those attempts more then a few times.

The Platte of Ron is a sick collection of Ron that is not for the weak stomached person. Also shows his true colors and probably a good over under of the make up of the rest of TSA.

Every terrorist out there know that they don't need to commit another act like those committed on 9/11/2001, they have a perfect target ready in plain sight. One created by the TSA. The checkpoint and its long queues caused by pointless and unnecessary TSA "requirements".

I'm confused. TSORon, are you saying that the non-member of the TSA, i.e. the courts who have ruled on numerous occasions, have no idea what your job is and have no business telling you what it is? :confused:

What I read from janetdoe's post was that she was merely telling you what your job was according to the courts, not what she PERSONALLY thought your job was.

Are you not bound by the rule of law just like the rest of us?

And the easiest target of all: the trash barrel where the water bottles are thrown. One of those nasty water-bottle explosives dumped into the trash barrel would certainly kill many during peak travel time, and certainly not just a few TSA clerks.

Which begs the question, why isn't there a bomb disposal unit standing by to handle every water bottle thrown into the barrel?

All that proves is that they don't know how to do these things correctly; it doesn't prove they don't have training. They don't know what a NEXUS card is, but we know they have received training on identifying one.

Thank you.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'll always tell them too, "how can you identifying the bad stuff, if you can't even ID the Customs and Border Protection/DHS valid ID," Well, sir, they don't see that everyday, "Yeah, they don't see C4 everyday either, but they're supposed to ID those, right?"

Tell that to the TSA crew in Fayetteville, NC.

Wouldn't Nappy say, "The system worked," :cool:

Every terrorist (and every common criminal for that matter) is well aware that if, for some reason, they want to get into the secure area of an airport to do something, all they have to do is to bribe a clerk or two. The track record is such that they go pretty cheap -- far less cash than Ron claims they don't look for.

All of the Cancer Boxes, ID checks, SPOTNik interrogations, Pre-Checks, or sexual assault resolution gropes don't matter a hill of beans.

One rationalization might be that the deterrent effect is so great, that the process of confiscating liquid containers makes SURE that no dangerous liquids are brought to the portal.

A TSA that cared about passengers would run a randomization process, so somebody who had to give up their water bottle could get a DIFFERENT one handed to them at the end of the screening process. Hard for the bad guys to game THAT system. Turn in a bottle, get a chit for a replacement from yesterday's bin.

What may have happened is that the TSA *wanted* bomb disposal presence at every portal to add to the theater effect, and they said: "You're kidding, right?"

Or else they thought one level deeper (I know, a rare event) and concluded that bomb disposal suits could *scare* the sheep in the queue and trigger them to ask the hard questions about the water carnival that everybody should be thinking.