Boston theft....again
 

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/10/2...logan-airport/

Never ends, does it? What a pathetic person(s) employed by a pathetic agency run by an even more pathetic director. :mad:

Thefts are so prevalent I'm thinking it must be addressed in the TSA SOP.

How to steal effectively at the Check Point.

I cannot denying that. TSA is trying to steal the jewelry from the passenger. No one to steal the jewelry, cash and etc. Nobody who touching the carryon bags. Ever! You will lose job. You will fired. No one who responsible for that. You have a many chance to stealing the items. This must stop! Enough is enough! Leave the personal items alone! Don't touch the bags!

I see.... someone only has to claim a theft and it's considered true on these boards.

As long as it's TSA being accused.

Never mind the (awfully convenient) delay in reporting/complaining.... never mind the idea that $3700 worth of jewelry was (allegedly) left in a carry on in the first place....after all noone ever makes false claims of the loss of high value items like that, now do they?

Since TSA has been accused no evidence is required!

So much for innocent until proven guilty eh?

While I do somewhat agree with your whole post I am not given the presumption of innocence by the TSA so why should they get that courteous when there are definite trends indicated otherwise.
the ratio of thefts per TSO vs actually illegal/harmful items attempted to be brought through a checkpoint by a passenger in comparison to the amount of passengers total screws towards the innocence of the passenger.

[QUOTE=trooper;19578382]I see.... someone only has to claim a theft and it's considered true on these boards.

As long as it's TSA being accused.

Never mind the (awfully convenient) delay in reporting/complaining.... never mind the idea that $3700 worth of jewelry was (allegedly) left in a carry on in the first place....after all noone ever makes false claims of the loss of high value items like that, now do they?

Since TSA has been accused no evidence is required!

So much for innocent until proven guilty eh?[/QUOTE]

While I am more than willing to consider an individual innocent until proven guilty, this agency and its employees has yet to instill much confidence in most of us on this board. The problem is endemic. The culture at TSA is unprofessional and problematic. Until DHS and TSA get a director who is trustworthy and competent I, as are many of us, am likely to consider the individual guilty. Chances are, he or she is. Prove me wrong.

Innocent until guilty is a concept only applicable to the court. We can think whatever we want.

For now, I will give the TSA the benefit of the doubt.

Uh, oh. If this is true, then my doubt meter just dropped a big notch. Let's pull the tape and see. If the screener left the area with the bag it is against procedure at the least and increases my suspicion significantly.

If the tape shows that her bag was always with her, I will defend the TSA on this one. If it shows the bag was taken from her sight or if the tape is not available or was "not functioning," I'm back on the Ivester's side.

It is up to the TSA to prove her claim false. They should have the tapes to do it. If they do not produce them, another TSA failure. If not by theft, it is failure by procedure.

I'll give TSA the same benefit of the doubt they give me. Sounds about fair.

Ever hear the saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

(I understand the administrative search aspect. Still what TSA does is over the top and far from their WEI role.)

So tell us where other than our carry on to place high value items when transiting a TSA checkpoint. Checked baggage?

How many cases of theft that has been proven before TSA changes procedures to guard against employees having opportunity?

I don't know if your handle "trooper" indicates LEO history or not but wouldn't a wise business operator harden procedures to protect against this being possible?

Since passengers are treated in a "you are a potential terrorist until we decide you aren't" manner by TSA, I fail to see what the problem is.

Sounds good to me.

The day they stop assuming I'm a terrorist,
is the day I'll start assuming they're decent people.

Mail Online:TSA DELETED its Surveillance Footage *before* beginning its investigation
 

Here's another article about the same incident... the key detail in this report is that TSA's claim process served as a run-the-clock-out mechanism, guaranteeing that TSA would delete its own surveillance video before TSA even began its internal investigation of the theft:

Mail Online:
Outrage after passenger finds thousands in jewelery 'snatched by TSA worker' and surveillance footage DELETED
PUBLISHED: 10:20 EST, 28 October 2012
UPDATED: 10:22 EST, 28 October 2012

A short quote:and

The TSA FEELS and STEALS the family jewels!

Of course, it's only alleged. But the fact that the TSA conveniently lost the video makes me very suspicious.

See: http://shinybadge.com/2012/10/not-on...o-steals-them/

^^^^^^

yes, after every shift, every TSA clerk needs to be thoroughly and intimately searched under their genitals to determine whether they've stashed some passenger jewelry under the family jewels. That and also use a cavity x-ray machine as they do in gold mines to make sure they didn't squirrel away passengers property up the orifaces. The clerks should have no problem with this, because, you know, it ain't personal.

Because 'It's your fault for leaving it readily available to thieves' is always a valid excuse. :rolleyes:

It is far more likely, by several orders of magnitude, that the security person searching luggage is a thief, than it is likely that the person whose luggage is being searched, is a terrorist.

[QUOTE=bluenotesro;19578930]I presume you work for the TSA.

For the rest of us, it's important to keep your eyes on your bags at all times. Americans have the right to have items of significant value with them as they travel within the country. Never let a bag out of your sight for even a moment.

Of course, the theft in this case is alleged. But since there have been proven cases of the TSA engaging in exactly this sort of scam, an abundance of caution is necessary.

As echoed in some prior comments, Innocent until proven guilty dosn't deserve to be applied to the TSA.

When I go through an airport checkpoint, I'm assumed to be guilty of being a security threat and a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Why, given their history of thefts and failing to run background checks on their employees among other things would I give them the benefit of the doubt that the person accused is likely an upstanding citizen who couldn't possibly be guilty of stealing something?

Yeah. A lot more TSA agents are busted for theft than false claims we hear about. Furthermore, the lack of the tape makes it pretty clear what really happened. TSA is quick to produce the tapes when it will exonerate them.

Wow! Who else should have their Constitutional rights stripped from them? Maybe the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals should be next? I know a great little place in Poland you could sent them.

Who do you work for? Has an employee of that company ever done anything wrong? If so, maybe YOU should also be guilty until proven otherwise?

TSA screeners have no Constitutional right to be alone, unobserved, with passenger's property. They also have no right to be above suspicion, especially given the statistics. They are in no danger of being falsely imprisoned, just closely watched. Where's the harm in that?

I agree with all of what you said but the individual screeners do, and SHOULD, have the right to a presumption of innosence (until convicted in a court of LAW, not public opinion) when accused of a crime. Once we start dictating which Americans the Constitution applies to and which ones it doesn't we start walking on a very slippery slope that leads to all the things we claim to oppose.

When do passengers get the same presumption of innocence?

When they've been accused of a crime. That's what the presumption of innocense applies to.

Doesn't TSA consider us all potential terrorists? Aren't we already subjected to a Constitution free zone at the airport?

Legally, you are of course correct. Practically, virtually no one wants to give TSA the benefit of any doubt, given their track record of the the last 10 years. When you are the most disliked federal agency of all, you reap what you sow.

I don't know what the solution is. If I did, I'd be very rich and very powerful worldwide, but the problem is that both freedom and security are a) never absolute and b) directly opposed to each other.

Does the TSA consider us all potential terrorists? Well, yes, they probably do. Can't the same be said for every bank, courthouse, concert, etc, etc where there are restrictions on what we do or what we carry on our person? I have never intended, attempted or planned to shoot someone in a courthouse. However, I get screened whenever I enter one. Are we (as a group) potential terrorists? Yes we are POTENTIAL terrorists. Was there any way on 9/11 of looking at the groups of people getting on the various jets and saying "Yeah, he's ok. Yeah, she's ok. Wait, this guy? Nope, he's a terrorist!"? The folks getting on those jets that day looked just like me, you and John Q Public. Are there some people on FT who are either terrorists or potential ones? I'd say most likely. FT is a wealth of information that can be used by good guys and misused by others.

So, what do we do?

Do we sacrifice personal liberty in the name of security (as they've done in Israel, etc for quite some time)? If so, in order to TOTALLY PREVENT the possibility of a security breach security needs to be much tighter. Tighter to the point that it becomes virtually unworkable.

Do we sacrifice public safety in the name of personal freedom? If so, the people that want to harm us will exploit our weakness. How many people will blame the government for not protecting us in that event?

Do we find a compromise in the middle somewhere? If we do, we will likely have neither freedom nor security. We will (and do) have reductions in freedom that increase security but not enough to prevent those who want to from doing us harm.

While I understand that a few (ok, several) bad apples may have tainted the bunch, this happens fairly often in a variety of ways. Priests molesting boys. Teachers having sexual relations with their students, cops stealing money and drugs from suspects, etc. Where I used to be a LEO we had a large percentage of African American and Mexican American people who sold drugs (as compared to the percentage of Caucasians that did). Does that mean that all priests, teachers, cops, African Americans and Mexican Americans should all be tarred with the same brush? If not, what makes individual TSOs any different?

Most importantly, once we decide that we are going to refuse those individuals their Constitutional rights are we not exactly the same as those we claim to dislike so much?

Easy Answer.

First, we recognize that lax gate security did NOT cause or facilitate the 9/11 attacks. If you look, you won't find in the official 9/11 Commission Report a finding that lax gate security caused the attacks. Because it didn't. The decision to "federalize" airport security was a panic-produced overreaction to the attacks, something that finally, even some TSA supporters in Congress are beginning to realize and admit.

Second, we force DHS and TSA to release the comprehensive interagency study of the risks to commercial aviation that they suppressed four years ago. That study properly ranked the then-known threats, and to no surprise, the above the wing threat from passengers wasn't the #1 threat. We update that study, and implement the necessary changes. Which will be difficult, because it will involve a dismantlement of much of the existing TSA structure - in particular, the inefficient and ineffective federalized screening force.

Third, we should retain TSA, but as a vastly different organization. We should consign the nudeoscopes to the junk pile where they belong, just like other advanced countries chose to do. Responsibility for the execution of airside passenger security would be returned to airports, supervised by a TSA FSD who would be charged with ensuring that minimum standards are maintained. The majority of TSA effort would be directed where it belongs - to address the most pressing threats to aviation security - under the wing security in particular.

Finally, the federal government should come clean to the American people and admit that despite its best efforts, it will never be able to eliminate the threat posed by terrorists. In other words, tell people to grow up and recognize that living is not a 100% risk-free endeavor.

I agree with pretty much everything you said to one degree or another.

I can think of about a dozen ways to create absolute havoc in a terrorsim event at an airport and none of them would involve bringing anything detectable through a TSA checkpoint. I think most people with a law enforcement, military or chemistry background would agree.

The establishment of the TSA was, without a doubt, a knee-jerk reaction which has done very little except increase the deficit and prove that Bin Laden did his job, and very well at that.

As for the rest, yeah, what you said. :)

Forgive my ignorance ... but why couldn't that report be FOIA'd into the public record?

The one time I had a problem with a TSO at BOS was when I insisted on watching my bag at all times after opting out and not standing exactly where he told me. The TSO told me that that's why they hired "federal officers," so that we could be sure that our belongings would never be pilfered at the checkpoint.

Thus, the woman's claim that the TSO stole jewelry must be false; a TSO assured me that they don't steal.

Mike

Or just a high school diploma.

Because it never went final. When Skeletor and Kippie saw it, they knew it had to be suppressed, in that it undermined their strategy to grow the TSA brownshirts.

Ok, that makes sense. (Well, as much as anything in this discussion makes sense ...)

The have been several times when TSA screeners have blocked me from seeing my luggage when I have opted out. One especially egregious incident at OAK involved a supervisor telling me the reason I couldn't see my bags was that the machine was in the way, and they weren't going to let me move to see them because I was creating an incident by insisting on seeing them. I filed three reports on that one (voice message, form at the airport, USPS letter).

I only got a response to the mailed complaint. Basically I was told "you are responsible to keep your luggage in view", "no, they aren't supposed to stand in front of to keep you from doing that" and "no, there is nothing you can do when that happens". (BTW, the others complaints were apparently lost.

Until the TSA has effective procedures that let passengers keep control of their bags (which isn't likely to happen), they are responsible. That means no immediate presumption of innocence. Sometime they will need to prove that a theft didn't occur. Which implies always retaining video records when an 'event' occurs, just as any non-government organization would be expected to do.

Yes -- just to add that internal working drafts of documents from any agency are not subject to FOIA release.

Exactly right. And we need politicians that will treat TSA theft as a federal crime, with serious penalties, and not just petty larceny.

A) Yup. Nothing is absolute.

B) TOTAL HOGWASH! Freedom, individual liberty, and involate personal rights are the most important and effective security and safety tools imaginable. Every one of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights has a direct, measurable, practical effect on the security of the individual and/or on society as a whole.

The only "danger" posed by individual liberty is the danger that someone will abuse it to do harm to others. But guess what? Eliminating liberty doesn't eliminate that danger! People will still do harm to others, even when living in a repressive police state. Which, I guess, means that there is no logical reason for eliminating liberty, except personal or ideological reasons like the Nazis and the Soviets used. And like those that Pistole is using now.