According to Blogdad Bob, SOP prohibits the disclosure of a TSO's full name, and the concealment of a TSO's ID badge, which has the full name on it, is allowed when a TSO is being filmed. This is ostensibly to protect the TSO from harassment and stalking by lunatics, troublemakers, and conter-revolutionary subversives.

The legality and Constitutionality of concealing the identity of a public employee, particularly a badged, uniformed, paramilitary employee whose job is rife with opportunities for abuse of power under color of authority, is of course up for debate.

My personal opinion is that NO government employee should be able to conceal their identity from the public for whom they work. Every TSO, TSM, AFSD and FSD, every federal employee who works in public and interacts with the general public in any way should be required to display in plain view at all times a name tag with their full names and their job titles, and to provide that information verbally on demand to anyone who asks.

Additionally, I find it absurd that TSA does not maintain an online list of current FSDs and AFSDs at all airports, along with their contact information. It is difficult to find the name of the current FSD at any particular airport, leading me to believe that this information is also being deliberately witheld from the pblic under the dubious assertion that publicly identifying these folks would put them "at risk." The particular risk is somewhat nebulous, but terrorist blackmail and Evil Stalking Crazy Passengers are implied.

Coming from the person who thinks flying is a privilege handed out by government?

I said that?

Can you please explain what you mean when you write that "pat-downs are pretty pervasive"? Do you mean that it is spread throughout every part of society? That it is rather penetrating? Or something else?

Because I don't recall encountering pat downs in many other facets of my daily life. In fact, the only times I've EVER been the subject of a pat down have been at the airport checkpoint.

I think that was a typo; I think he meant invasive, not pervasive.

Of course, TSA full-body rubdowns with genital contact and hands inside the pants and shirt ARE very invasive while simultaneously completely perverse, so the word almost makes sense.

No, That is exactly why the statement was made.

Don't you see a problem with a screener who apparently takes 'shortcuts' when he's not being filmed? And his supervisor is OK with such careless performance?

I want to make sure I correct this. The supervisor only said the stuff about not getting the face/name. The plain-clothes manager said that if what I said was true that it was "not okay".

He was referring to the person you were quoting.

Mike