Jun 25, 2014, 1:23 pm
Last edit by: WIRunner
TSAPressSec, Ross, is the TSA's official rep on FlyerTalk. He has agreed to answer questions, though some answers will take time. You can also contact on him on Twitter: @TSAMedia_RossF.
Note these important posts by Ross:
and
Below are questions so far answered (or not) in this thread:
For a full list of all posts by TSAPressSec, view their profile here: TSAPressSec and select the Find All Posts By TSAPressSec
Note these important posts by Ross:
Unfortunately, I can't devote all my time to this site, as I still have other job requirements, etc. So please be patient with me...especially on my third day here. However, I will go back to our experts to answer these questions that have been posed above. I know the moderator is working on a better system to sort questions in the appropriate threads.
Many, many questions, and I am working to get answers. I have thick skin, and want to assist in answering them. I apologize for the delay, but I was out of the office on personal leave.
With that being said, please be patient. Some of the questions have to be researched, and I want to vet them with the appropriate personnel internally before I post them here.
With that being said, please be patient. Some of the questions have to be researched, and I want to vet them with the appropriate personnel internally before I post them here.
- Question: Answer:I was the lucky random beep at the WTMD in PreCheck tonight at Portland. Instead of the quick hand swab, I was sent to the MMW. Since nobody uses it, the MMW has to be fired up, calibrated then I was told not to remove my belt, wallet or shoes. Of course those two required me to be patted down. Checkpoint supe and all three TSOs said it's a new, nationwide policy that started a few days ago. So, why the change? It added an extra two minutes tonight, but I was the only one in PreCheck. If this happens at 6-7a, it's going to make it a total mess....Yes. We are going to expand the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) in TSA Pre✓™ at select checkpoints. However, the vast majority of passengers in TSA Pre✓™ will still be screened via a walk-through metal detector. This will primarily be rolled out at larger airports with more than one TSA Pre✓™ lane.
TSA Pre✓™ eligible passengers, who prefer to be screened via an AIT, will now have the opportunity to do so at these select checkpoints. Many passengers with joint replacements, prosthetics or other medical devices that would regularly alarm when passing through a walk-through metal detector often prefer this technology because it is quicker and less invasive than a pat-down. Unlike standard lanes, passengers will not be required to divest their shoes, light outerwear and/or belt in the AIT.
Previously, if a passenger alarmed when passing through the walk-through metal detector after multiple passes, that passenger would be required to receive a pat-down. Passengers at these select TSA Pre✓™ checkpoints, where available, will now have the option of being screened via AIT, possibly precluding the need for a pat-down. - Question: Answer:Is there a clear/public way for dealing with complaints against TSOs?Yes. Definitely. I know you may not believe it, but all complaints do get forwarded to the TSA leadership at that airport to investigate. Two different ways to contact us to report this -- and we want travelers to provide feedback so it can be addressed ASAP. The more details, the better.
For example, someone last night posted something on twitter regarding an interaction with one of our employees. We immediately flagged that for our leadership at the airport so it can be addressed.
Option 1: You can submit comments electronically using this form.
Option 2: Call 1-866-289-9673 or email [email protected] - Question: Answer:Is it a requirement for a pax to state their name when asked by the TDC as according to the regs, the only things needed to enter the secure are are an I/D containing a picture of the pax standing in front of the TDC and a boarding pass for a flight on that date with the name on the boarding passs matching the name on the I/D presented by the pax-and if it is in fact required, why is this procedure not followed at every airport that I travel thru (and this is at airports where the lines at the checkpoints are both horrendously long and empty?I travel often, and this is the first time I have heard this. It is just matching the name to the BP, and verifying origin/date, etc. Sometimes a BDO might talk with the pax. But let me take this back to some of our experts to find out. As I said above, I don't have all of the answers, but promise to see what I can find out.
- Question: Where can I find a listing of TSA Twitter feeds?
Answer: All of the TSA Twitter accounts are listed here.
For a full list of all posts by TSAPressSec, view their profile here: TSAPressSec and select the Find All Posts By TSAPressSec
Greetings from TSA
Jun 22, 2014, 9:19 pm
#76
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BUR / LAX
Programs: UA MM/Gold; WN A-list; HH something depending; Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,557
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BB10; Kbd) AppleWebKit/537.35+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.2.1.2174 Mobile Safari/537.35+)
^^ to the bolded language above.
Ross, you need to understand that Blogger Bob has no credibility here, like most of the TSA public spokespersons. I realize you are going to be limited on occasion as to what you can say, but if you go down the path blazed by Bob, you will fail.
I truly hope you will succeed, but like Flies notes, if you are going to claim you've never heard of the name game....
But I do have a question for you. I routinely take the paper boarding pass that is scribbled upon when I enter the screening checkpoint, and I discard it before boarding, using either a fresh paper copy or the BP on my smart phone. When I use a "clean" BP, I have never been stopped at boarding. So what's the point of the scribbles?
I would venture to guess this is like a lot of QA check lists. Has nothing to do with anything, but forcing frontline employees to go thru the scribbles is a way to force/make sure they have looked at each section of a BP. I've mandated likewise in some QA operations. Kabuki, but kabuki that makes the front line staff go thru each step?
Originally Posted by halls120
Ross -- Let me add that there are several of us who post here that have access to the same level of national security information that your bosses do. We read the same daily reports and analyses that your bosses read.
To expand upon Hall's comment in his first paragraph, there are several of us who regularly attend inter-agency meetings and working groups at a fairly high level in government. I can honestly say that your fellow TSA and DHS employees either frequently embarrass themselves in these meetings or simply do not constructively contribute. (The two big exceptions to this generalization are the Coast Guard and FEMA.)
What we want is open and honest dialogue. I will assert that you cannot BS those of us who have "been there" and currently "are there." If you are going to do no better than the TSA blog or any of your other press drivel, which is generally insulting, you will have failed.
Right off the bat, I simply cannot believe your assertion that you have never heard of the "name game." If you have been on FT as you state, you would have had to have been on Mars to not have read about it on FT. You've got a huge credibility issue right out of the blocks.
To expand upon Hall's comment in his first paragraph, there are several of us who regularly attend inter-agency meetings and working groups at a fairly high level in government. I can honestly say that your fellow TSA and DHS employees either frequently embarrass themselves in these meetings or simply do not constructively contribute. (The two big exceptions to this generalization are the Coast Guard and FEMA.)
What we want is open and honest dialogue. I will assert that you cannot BS those of us who have "been there" and currently "are there." If you are going to do no better than the TSA blog or any of your other press drivel, which is generally insulting, you will have failed.
Right off the bat, I simply cannot believe your assertion that you have never heard of the "name game." If you have been on FT as you state, you would have had to have been on Mars to not have read about it on FT. You've got a huge credibility issue right out of the blocks.
Ross, you need to understand that Blogger Bob has no credibility here, like most of the TSA public spokespersons. I realize you are going to be limited on occasion as to what you can say, but if you go down the path blazed by Bob, you will fail.
I truly hope you will succeed, but like Flies notes, if you are going to claim you've never heard of the name game....
But I do have a question for you. I routinely take the paper boarding pass that is scribbled upon when I enter the screening checkpoint, and I discard it before boarding, using either a fresh paper copy or the BP on my smart phone. When I use a "clean" BP, I have never been stopped at boarding. So what's the point of the scribbles?
Jun 22, 2014, 10:53 pm
#78
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX (elite) and a few others (non-elite)
Posts: 687
Precisely my point. I'd hate to have people abuse his graciously taking on this task in between his normal job duties and personal life. Given it isn't a full time gig for him, we all need to be patient and hopefully a more structured process and FAQ and Wiki etc can be developed. His thread(s) are quickly going to be amongst the most watched and quoted on FT. On the plus side for Ross, dealing with all of us FT members may make him appreciate the Washing press corps! :-)
** A large part of the answer to this question, btw, is "because they're human". Just like every single one of you. I can guarantee that every critic of the TSA has made a mistake themselves. Now, let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
Last edited by IanFromHKG; Jun 22, 2014 at 10:55 pm Reason: Corrected typo
Jun 23, 2014, 12:40 am
#79
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: YVR
Posts: 80
I'm skeptical on two counts; the first is that PreCheck aims to expedite screening by not requiring the time consuming AIT scan (especially when it seems that a majority have false positives that need to be patted down anyway); the second is that many travelers, myself included, use PreCheck to actively avoid AIT. If we are all told to use it anyway, people either will no longer bother to sign up for the program, making it redundant, or they will opt out more regularly than the average pleb, making the line run slower than a regular line. Or they'll just pick up on what I've been doing for years - wear a sling bought at a pharmacy and get a medical opt-out.
Then again, the TSA isn't exactly an institution enamored with logic or sense. If the corruption in Washington wants them to find an excuse to buy more machines from a lobbyist's friend, that'll take precedence over, y'know, safety and justice.
Then again, the TSA isn't exactly an institution enamored with logic or sense. If the corruption in Washington wants them to find an excuse to buy more machines from a lobbyist's friend, that'll take precedence over, y'know, safety and justice.
Jun 23, 2014, 5:00 am
#80
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Jun 23, 2014, 5:28 am
#81
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Yes. We are going to expand the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) in TSA Pre✓™ at select checkpoints. However, the vast majority of passengers in TSA Pre✓™ will still be screened via a walk-through metal detector. This will primarily be rolled out at larger airports with more than one TSA Pre✓™ lane.
TSA Pre✓™ eligible passengers, who prefer to be screened via an AIT, will now have the opportunity to do so at these select checkpoints. Many passengers with joint replacements, prosthetics or other medical devices that would regularly alarm when passing through a walk-through metal detector often prefer this technology because it is quicker and less invasive than a pat-down. Unlike standard lanes, passengers will not be required to divest their shoes, light outerwear and/or belt in the AIT.
Previously, if a passenger alarmed when passing through the walk-through metal detector after multiple passes, that passenger would be required to receive a pat-down. Passengers at these select TSA Pre✓™ checkpoints, where available, will now have the option of being screened via AIT, possibly precluding the need for a pat-down.
TSA Pre✓™ eligible passengers, who prefer to be screened via an AIT, will now have the opportunity to do so at these select checkpoints. Many passengers with joint replacements, prosthetics or other medical devices that would regularly alarm when passing through a walk-through metal detector often prefer this technology because it is quicker and less invasive than a pat-down. Unlike standard lanes, passengers will not be required to divest their shoes, light outerwear and/or belt in the AIT.
Previously, if a passenger alarmed when passing through the walk-through metal detector after multiple passes, that passenger would be required to receive a pat-down. Passengers at these select TSA Pre✓™ checkpoints, where available, will now have the option of being screened via AIT, possibly precluding the need for a pat-down.
And speaking of false alarms, when is the TSA going to
Collect and Use AIT ATR Machine Data Before it Spends More on Program
https://chsdemocrats.house.gov/press/index.asp?ID=864
and
TSA faces challenges in managing its AIT program because it is not using all available data that it collects to inform its decisions. For
example, TSA does not enforce compliance with its operational directive that requires each airport to conduct IED checkpoint drills each week, nor does it collect or use IED checkpoint drill data on SO performance. Additionally, TSA is not analyzing available data on the number of secondary screening pat-downs that SOs conduct when the
system indicates that it has detected an anomaly, which could provide
insight into the number of false alarms that occur in the field and the
extent to which these alarms affect operational costs.
example, TSA does not enforce compliance with its operational directive that requires each airport to conduct IED checkpoint drills each week, nor does it collect or use IED checkpoint drill data on SO performance. Additionally, TSA is not analyzing available data on the number of secondary screening pat-downs that SOs conduct when the
system indicates that it has detected an anomaly, which could provide
insight into the number of false alarms that occur in the field and the
extent to which these alarms affect operational costs.
And another article:
http://www.hstoday.us/channels/dhs/s...udit-says.html
Jun 23, 2014, 6:44 am
#82
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Ross -
Here are a few very specific questions for you.
If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question).
1. If presented with the pax's US passport, may a TSO / TDC demand that a pax present any secondary form of ID, for any reason?
(Note: if the TDC suspects the passport is false, then they should probably be calling the police for felony violation of 18 USC §§ 1028, 1543, and/or 1544.
Note that violating a safe conduct or passport is also a felony, under 18 USC § 1545.)
2. What is the SOP for screening someone who states that they are medically unable to hold their arms above their head as required for the AIT scanners, but are able to walk through a metal detector?
Are they to be given WTMD + hand swab, full patdown, SSSS treatment, …?
3. The current TSA website states both that passengers may take medical liquids "in reasonable quantities".
What is the SOP to determine how much liquid is "reasonable" for a given traveler to carry?
What is the law authorizing TSA personnel to make a medical determination of this sort?
4. Does the TSA purport to have authority other than to conduct a search that is "no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly"?
For instance, if TSA believes that someone is carrying 20 gallons of shampoo, but has no reason to believe that the shampoo is a weapon or explosive (e.g. the pax volunteers to have it tested, and if tested, it x-rays and ETD tests clean), what grounds if any does the TSA have to deny them boarding (together with their 20 gallons of shampoo)?
(Note of course that this question is completely independent of whether the airline agrees to transport that. I'm asking about TSA rules, not private contracts.)
Thank you in advance for answering, if you do.
Here are a few very specific questions for you.
If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question).
1. If presented with the pax's US passport, may a TSO / TDC demand that a pax present any secondary form of ID, for any reason?
(Note: if the TDC suspects the passport is false, then they should probably be calling the police for felony violation of 18 USC §§ 1028, 1543, and/or 1544.
Note that violating a safe conduct or passport is also a felony, under 18 USC § 1545.)
2. What is the SOP for screening someone who states that they are medically unable to hold their arms above their head as required for the AIT scanners, but are able to walk through a metal detector?
Are they to be given WTMD + hand swab, full patdown, SSSS treatment, …?
3. The current TSA website states both that passengers may take medical liquids "in reasonable quantities".
What is the SOP to determine how much liquid is "reasonable" for a given traveler to carry?
What is the law authorizing TSA personnel to make a medical determination of this sort?
4. Does the TSA purport to have authority other than to conduct a search that is "no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly"?
For instance, if TSA believes that someone is carrying 20 gallons of shampoo, but has no reason to believe that the shampoo is a weapon or explosive (e.g. the pax volunteers to have it tested, and if tested, it x-rays and ETD tests clean), what grounds if any does the TSA have to deny them boarding (together with their 20 gallons of shampoo)?
(Note of course that this question is completely independent of whether the airline agrees to transport that. I'm asking about TSA rules, not private contracts.)
Thank you in advance for answering, if you do.
Jun 23, 2014, 7:19 am
#83
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
This may seem like a flip question, but it's not:
I recently convinced my stepfather, who is in his 70's and almost never flies, to take a plane rather than subjecting himself to a 2-day drive. I was really hoping it would go well, to convince him to do it again in the future, but unfortunately it was an overall difficult experience for him. Among other things, I was expecting he might get shunted into a TSA-Pre line due to his age, but instead he got randomly selected for additional screening! He has no criminal history, and except for military service a long time ago, he has never even traveled outside the U.S. I coached him on what to pack, so I'm sure he had no liquids, small knives or other prohibited items in his carry-on. I'm curious as to why this could have happened, and if there is anything I could have done to make the experience better for him. Do first-time or rare flyers get singled out for special treatment?
I know you probably can't say much about the selection process for the different lines, but I thought I'd raise the question anyway.
I recently convinced my stepfather, who is in his 70's and almost never flies, to take a plane rather than subjecting himself to a 2-day drive. I was really hoping it would go well, to convince him to do it again in the future, but unfortunately it was an overall difficult experience for him. Among other things, I was expecting he might get shunted into a TSA-Pre line due to his age, but instead he got randomly selected for additional screening! He has no criminal history, and except for military service a long time ago, he has never even traveled outside the U.S. I coached him on what to pack, so I'm sure he had no liquids, small knives or other prohibited items in his carry-on. I'm curious as to why this could have happened, and if there is anything I could have done to make the experience better for him. Do first-time or rare flyers get singled out for special treatment?
I know you probably can't say much about the selection process for the different lines, but I thought I'd raise the question anyway.
Mr. Pistole said he has heard the complaints about Precheck lanes getting clogged, and TSA has already decided to stop moving travelers 75 years of age and older into Precheck service, unless they are enrolled, because they sometimes can take 10 minutes to move through. As Precheck enrollment grows, the "managed inclusion" effort will be phased out, he said.
Referring to the bolded phrase, perhaps the TSA Press Secretary will share with us how many people have actually paid their $85 to enroll in PreCheck. Seems to me it probably isn't many or else the TSA would be touting the number of people who have signed up.
Jun 23, 2014, 8:19 am
#84
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
Jun 23, 2014, 9:16 am
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Here are a few very specific questions for you.
If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question)...
< snip snip snip >
...Thank you in advance for answering, if you do.
If you need time to answer them or aren't allowed to, please respond saying so w/ an ETA or explanation, rather than not responding until you have clearance (because that looks like ignoring the question)...
< snip snip snip >
...Thank you in advance for answering, if you do.
Ever wonder why so many hospitality providers designate people to "work" FT, who quickly disappear and never return? I don't.
Jun 23, 2014, 9:42 am
#86
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,771
I finally found the travelers over 75 statement:
No travelers over 75
Referring to the bolded phrase, perhaps the TSA Press Secretary will share with us how many people have actually paid their $85 to enroll in PreCheck. Seems to me it probably isn't many or else the TSA would be touting the number of people who have signed up.
No travelers over 75
Referring to the bolded phrase, perhaps the TSA Press Secretary will share with us how many people have actually paid their $85 to enroll in PreCheck. Seems to me it probably isn't many or else the TSA would be touting the number of people who have signed up.
Jun 23, 2014, 9:52 am
#87
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,771
Well, I see the patented FlyerTalk red carpet is being rolled out... man, we sound like a difficult, contentious bunch of so-and-sos sometimes. Bear in mind that Ross is here on his own time, and apparently in good faith, and has stated he feels the TSA radio-silence policy is overdue for a change. A prosecutorial, skeptical tone in the very first inning is IMO highly ungenerous and inappropriate.
Ever wonder why so many hospitality providers designate people to "work" FT, who quickly disappear and never return? I don't.
Ever wonder why so many hospitality providers designate people to "work" FT, who quickly disappear and never return? I don't.
Most of the questions have been asked over and over again to no avail. Any ombudsman of any institution with a similar track record would be facing a similar response. Indeed, IMHO, the response he's getting here is far kinder than the response of TSA towards those who try to get answers on the blog. Far kinder than the responses most of us get when we try to understand craziness, rudeness and unpredictability at the checkpoint.
One would think that there should be a resource available to provide a definitive answer on any situation at any time to anyone in the organization. Those answers should generally be made available to the American public. It's not reasonable to ask people to follow the rules while denying them access to the rules. I can think of three possible answers to any given question here: a clear, no double-talk answer that any first time traveler can understand, an "I'm not at liberty to discuss that", or "it depends, because...". (An inexcusable example of the latter: a DEN TSO said there are specific length/weight SSI rules governing walking sticks/canes that were invoked only at DEN to try to confiscate an elderly actor's 'light saber' walking stick. There's no reason this very specific information should be kept from the public).
I wish him well; I'm sure his intentions are good, but I also have to agree with Halls and Flies: Blogger Bob's approach isn't going to cut it.
If Ross's equivalent any where else in the world besides the US signed up here, do you think the reaction would be the same?
If not, perhaps TSA should spend more time in its boondoggle jaunts to Europe learning from others instead of trying to force TSA standards on them.
Last edited by chollie; Jun 23, 2014 at 10:03 am
Jun 23, 2014, 10:05 am
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Yes, TSA operations are often irrational. FT can be irrational also. I dropped off the TS/S board a long time ago after some lunatic posted a passionate argument in favor of tracking down TSA employees in private life, harassing and ostracizing them, and suggesting that any resulting suicides would count as just moral victories. I want no part of that sort of reaction to a "decade of frustration," and I strongly suggest FT do its best to give Ross a civil reception, not the ten-cent Perry Mason interrogative treatment.
Jun 23, 2014, 10:24 am
#89
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,771
We don't approve of screaming at United Airlines employees who are trying to do their best because we think their management is a gang of inept, value-destroying monsters. I think Ross should be afforded the same consideration.
Yes, TSA operations are often irrational. FT can be irrational also. I dropped off the TS/S board a long time ago after some lunatic posted a passionate argument in favor of tracking down TSA employees in private life, harassing and ostracizing them, and suggesting that any resulting suicides would count as just moral victories. I want no part of that sort of reaction to a "decade of frustration," and I strongly suggest FT do its best to give Ross a civil reception, not the ten-cent Perry Mason interrogative treatment.
Yes, TSA operations are often irrational. FT can be irrational also. I dropped off the TS/S board a long time ago after some lunatic posted a passionate argument in favor of tracking down TSA employees in private life, harassing and ostracizing them, and suggesting that any resulting suicides would count as just moral victories. I want no part of that sort of reaction to a "decade of frustration," and I strongly suggest FT do its best to give Ross a civil reception, not the ten-cent Perry Mason interrogative treatment.
Both sides have to be frank and respectful. Respect doesn't just mean not screaming and ranting; it also means not insulting someone's intelligence. It is difficult to believe that someone who flies frequently and who has frequented this forum for quite a while has never even heard of the 'name game'.
FT is one of the more civil forums around, even on its worst days, IMHO. I occasionally read comments in linked news stories, and frankly, sometimes I think those people are a disgrace to the human race. If they're representative of the public at large, we are in big trouble.
I'm sure you, like me, occasionally encounter a poster who you consider offensive (there's one on OMNI right now trying to badger me into a response). You don't even need the ignore button. You can suggest that if the poster frames the questions in gentler language, you will be willing to respond.
Overall, even at its worst, I think the quality of information and the level of discourse in this forum, even at its most heated and worst, still ranks far above the TSA HQ Blog - a blog that we flyers and taxpayers fund, a blog purportedly started precisely to engage and inform the public.
Jun 23, 2014, 10:28 am
#90
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,707
Both sides have to be frank and respectful. Respect doesn't just mean not screaming and ranting; it also means not insulting someone's intelligence. It is difficult to believe that someone who flies frequently and who has frequented this forum for quite a while has never even heard of the 'name game'.
......
Overall, even at its worst, I think the quality of information and the level of discourse in this forum, even at its most heated and worst, still ranks far above the TSA HQ Blog - a blog that we flyers and taxpayers fund, a blog purportedly started precisely to engage and inform the public.
......
Overall, even at its worst, I think the quality of information and the level of discourse in this forum, even at its most heated and worst, still ranks far above the TSA HQ Blog - a blog that we flyers and taxpayers fund, a blog purportedly started precisely to engage and inform the public.
If TSA wants an honest, civil exchange of views - something I support - they need to stop misleading people when they ask logical questions about aspects of TSA procedures.