Section 107

potato, pah-tah-toe, the point is still the same - GSOL is not permitted to share the information.

Why investigate the person transporting an item that triggers an alarm? The concept is no different than why a patrol cop asks a bunch of questions of a driver whom she has stopped for not coming to a complete stop before making that right turn on red. Because those questions often result in responses that in turn prompt more questions that often result in discovering evidence that triggers investigation of crimes much more serious than a right turn without coming to a complete stop.

Boggie Dog

The two situations are not even close to being similar. TSA's mission is narrowly focused, find WEI. That's it. If TSA has an item that has alarmed then determining if there is a concern would open the door for a closer look. Finding evidence of crime is the job of police, which clearly excludes TSA.

Section 107

I absolutely agree with you which I I didn't say the situations were similar and I didnt say TSA is searching for evidence of a crime. I said the concept for why additional screening of the pax transporting an item that triggers an alarm is similar.

Boggie Dog

Your argument would stand the light of day if the traveler got a pat down each and every time some other item alarmed. But to the best of my knowledge that doesn't happen. Sometimes things are as they appear and in the case of this thread TSA was abusive because the kid left his laptop in his carry-on instead of removing it. Lesson...don't follow direction expect punishment.

gsoltso

I understand your position 100%, I am on the other end of the frustration spectrum - I know the answers and some of the reasoning behind them, but am not allowed to distribute said information. We are very limited in what we can say, and I have to stick to things that the organization has published officially - which makes it very difficult to even render opinions about some things.

Of course, I am not the best with numbers, so 1+1 may indeed equal 3, and I have a scientist friend that says 1+1=3 all the time, it just depends on whether you are willing to mix substances and measurement standards.

In this case, asking for an opinion is asking me to provide some of the reasoning behind why TSA would do a specific type of screening in a given situation - which is describing SOP.

In all security systems, there are numerous descriptors used depending upon what you are reading/hearing. Every class I have ever taken about SSI and SECRET (when I had it) described the situation the exact same way - the information is only allowed to be distributed to a person that is "covered", and that has a need to know in order to perform their job function. Every single class, even back to my military days used the exact same phrasing.

Actually they are pretty close to being the same in principle. When something piques your interest at TSA (an alarm) or LEO a violation of law, it warrants further scrutiny.

Boggie Dog

Trying to keep this discussion narrowly focused on what happen to the boy that is this threads topic.

As I understand it, the boy sent his carry-on bag to the x-ray machine where his laptop was observed in his bag. That was the alarm, not explosive residue or anything else. The laptop in the bag generated the extra scrutiny and resulted in the pat down of the kid. Nothing of danger was discovered in or on the bag or laptop. In simple terms there was no need or reason for the abusive pat down.

If TSA policy directs a pat down in this situation then I would say that TSA is very misguided and needs some change. I seem to remember TSA bragging about Risk Based Security. Guess that went out the window!

petaluma1

The above is exactly what happened.

BTW, here's the dictionary definition of "alarm":

1. an anxious awareness of danger.

Synonyms: fear, anxiety, apprehension, trepidation, nervousness, unease, distress, agitation, consternation, disquiet,
perturbation, fright, panic, dread, horror, shock, terror

Seems to me that the TSA would do well to find a word other than "alarm" to describe the finding of things that are out of the ordinary. But then again, TSA wouldn't be TSA if it weren't in a constant state of "alarm".

Boggie Dog

In Post #15 the following statement was made: I don't think such was the case which leads a person to conclude that the Pat Down was punishment for not complying with TSA's demands of removing laptops from their bags. Supposedly the reason is because the x-ray machines cannot image these types of materials well. But TSA has no issue imaging laptops and such in the Pre Check lanes where flyers can leave their laptops in their carry-on bags.

Again, at TSA 1 + 1 = 3!

petaluma1

How does a laptop "alarm" if it wasn't swabbed?

Boggie Dog

Must be more of that TSA New Math.

Ari

Oh dear. I didn't mean to turn this into the TSA arithmetic thread. After all, TSA arithmetic is usually 3 - 1 - 1 = 0 explosions.

gsoltso

“TSA allows for a pat-down of a teenage passenger, and in this case, all approved procedures were followed to resolve an alarm of the passenger’s laptop,” spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said in an email.

Again, the laptop alarmed.

WillCAD

"Alarmed" in what sense? It was in his carry-on bag, which went through the x-ray scanner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the carry-on x-ray scanners at the c/p a manual viewing device? They don't "alarm" as the WTMD and WBI do - the operator sees something he can't resolve visually and refers to item for hand inspection, which typically consists of unpacking the bag, visually inspecting the contents, and swabbing the entire contents (plus the bag itself) and running the swab through the ETD.

Did the bag then get referred for a hand search, which subsequently caused an alarm on the ETD? If so, how does anyone know that the LAPTOP alarmed, and not something else in the bag? DId the TSO conducting the inspection swab JUST the laptop and put the swab in the ETD? Or did he follow standard procedure and swab the laptop, the bag, and all of the bag's contents, before putting the swab into the ETD?

And even if the laptop - or the bag, or the bag's other contents - did indeed alarm the ETD, why did that trigger a full-body rubdown on the kid himself, rather than a simple, quick, easy, and non-invasive hand swab?

Or is this simply a case where "alarmed" means "failure to follow instructions on the passenger's part constitutes an alarm on TSA's part"?

Boggie Dog

I believe Lisa Farbstein has twisted what alarm means in order to protect TSA's image.

The original story suggests that the laptop was left in the bag and the x-ray operator pulled the bag for that reason, not for any additional alarm on the laptop alone. Why not get a copy of the incident report and see exactly what that document says?

While a Pat Down may be allowed it should be reserved for when every other screening method has failed to resolve the issue. Repeating the party line does not advance the discussion.

petaluma1

How, exactly, did the laptop "alarm"? Did it "alarm" by virtue of being left in the bag? Did it "alarm" after a positive ETD? As I suggested in an earlier post, perhaps the TSA needs to change its nomenclature so that every little departure from the normal range does not automatically become an "alarm".

BINGO!!!

TSA would do well to reconsider how to respond to "failure to follow instructions on the passenger's part" - if every single instance of "FTF" (failure to follow) constitutes an alarming situation, the stress felt by screeners at checkpoints would be considerable.