Originally Posted by elektronic

Now that I think about it, does the no-fly list also apply to flights coming into the US from other nations?

Originally Posted by jonesing

she along wih the governing agency are (overly)worried about scanner malfunctions or a possible (Mission Impossible-style) switcheroo while the package is out of our hands.

Originally Posted by daw617

I don't know enough about the risks to know how significant this threat is, but the concern doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

Haven't you heard the stories about laptops being stolen at airport checkpoints by a pair of crooks working together? Crook #1 would be positioned just before you in line. When you put your laptop on the conveyor belt, Crook #1 would suddenly stop just short of the X-ray machine, preventing you from going through (e.g., he suddenly stoops down to tie his shoelaces and fumbles and stalls). While you are fuming at the delay, your laptop goes through the X-ray machine and pops out the other side. Meanwhile, Crook #2 -- who has been waiting patiently on the other side of the X-ray machine -- waits for your laptop to appear on the other side, snatches it, and melts into the crowd. Once Crook #2 has taken your laptop, Crook #1 walks through the X-ray machine as if nothing had happened. This isn't fiction we're talking about; this is real life. Are you certain this couldn't happen to your TOP SECRET material?

Or, there is a possibility for you to get separated from your bag if you are pulled aside for "continuous screening" immediately after going through the X-ray machine.

It may well be over cautious, for all I know, but it doesn't seem completely without foundation. If we're talking about material whose disclosure could cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security, this kind of caution may well be appropriate. Perhaps some security officer has decided that it is safer to prevent putting couriers in a position where this could happen to them rather than teaching couriers about these risks and how to respond.

Originally Posted by Superguy

All of which you described is why classified information is always handchecked with the handler in constant physical contact. When you have something classified, you don't even go to the bathroom without taking it with you. Anyone who's following proper protocol would not allow a laptop to be screened in such a way.

Very rarely would classified computers be taken outside a classified area. Most data would be sent electronically if at all possible.

Originally Posted by dgolding

Exempting cleared government (or contractor) staff from any sort of inspection is a poor idea. Not because it will make the skies more or less safe (TSA is probably neutral in that regard, post-911), but because it is important that government employees "enjoy" the exact same treatment as everyone else. Thats it - its simply about fairness. If cleared personel are exempt from some or all inspection, that would mean that senior TSA/DHS staff - all of whom are cleared - would also enjoy such an exemption. Thats a terrible idea. In industry, its called "eating your own dog food". Whatever you call it, it is doubly important when you are talking about government decision makers in a democracy.

The other issue is that terrorists are smart. If they know that cleared staff are exempt from certain screening, they will leverage that knowledge. Of course, this assumes that civil aviation is still a priority target for terrorists, a doubtful premise at this point time, considering the wide availability of much softer targets. These guys are not one-trick ponies.

Originally Posted by Old NFO

You are dead on the money Super... Also, most of that stuff that has enough lead time actually goes via DCS now due to those very issues. Also, those who courier are directed to present as low a profile as possible, and never show credentials or the letter unless absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much

It all boils down to not drawing attention to yourself. I go crazy every time I see someone on the DC Metro visibly carrying a locked pouch. They might as well be wearing a sandwich board sign saying: "Please mug me -- I'm carrying classified."

Originally Posted by Superguy

All of which you described is why classified information is always handchecked with the handler in constant physical contact. When you have something classified, you don't even go to the bathroom without taking it with you.

Originally Posted by kmfdm91

All,

Yet again, I've had another attempt on trying to figure out what might cause one to be SSSS'd again. Here's my experience:

I'm a Premier Exec on United and a General Member on American. On quite a few flights on both carriers, I have been SSSS'd. It happened randomly, but usually when trips were made just before flying...even in Full-Y. This all stopped last fall, even when trips were booked the day before or even the day OF flying. I might not think much about it, and purely think of the randomness of it all...but I've since noticed these oddities.

* A coworker traveling with me had the exact same itinerary, booked the exact same date (day before travel on a paid F ticket). She got SSSS'd and I got nothing. This has happened more than once. Both of us have no status (on AA).
* I have taken several one-way trips on US (I'm only status because of *A) booked the day before, without a single one being SSSS.

After thinking about it all, I realized that I haven't been SSSS'd at all since I received my full TS (Top Secret) Clearance. Is this somehow tied into the government's processing of SSSS'ers? It would make complete sense, but I couldn't find anything about it at all in the forums.

I'm sure that other FTers have clearances (especially here in WAS); How many of you all have been SSSS'd if holding a clearance...if so - how high was the clearance and what was your itinerary?

I'm just curious

-jeremy

Originally Posted by herzmeh

Hi,

When I had interim S it seemed that I was getting SSSSed all the time, it seems that it stopped when I got my final S.

Originally Posted by Bart

I realize that the topic is about SSSS and security clearances. I am going to digress by sharing what I experience at the checkpoint from military and civilian members who possess security clearance. It seems that they are offended at the very notion of having to undergo any type of security screening. First of all, as stated previously, we have no way of verifying security clearances, and government hasn't found a way for the various different departments (e.g. Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security) to exchange security clearances in a consistent, smooth and efficient manner. It's all essentially done on a case-by-case basis involving a basic methodology of communicating clearances. This is different than someone from TSA, for example, tapping into a database and verifying someone's security clearance in advance before they process through the checkpoint (and I do NOT advocate such a move...I'm just illustrating how complicated this issue is).

I've had people with prohibited items (scissors---when they were prohibited---knives, tools, etc) argue that they had a secret security clearance or even top secret clearance and that they shouldn't even have to undergo screening. I understand the logic of what they're saying but not the practicality of what they're saying. They are, of course, only looking at it from a purely selfish perspective of being inconvenienced without looking at the big picture of how TSA can safely by-pass screening for some people and not for others.

Here is my "problem" for those who have security clearances and think they are above the law: as a counterintelligence special agent, my caseload was devoted exclusively to those with security clearances who were suspected of a wide variety of crimes ranging from security violations to conducting espionage against the United States. Never had a dry spell. Someone with a security clearance is ALWAYS doing something to draw scrutiny to his or her eligibity for continued trust and access to classified information. Not saying that everyone who has a security clearance shouldn't be trusted. Just saying that having a security clearance is not an automatic guarantee of trust.

It is why those of us who had clearances had to undergo periodic reinvestigations and, for a few of us, periodic polygraph examinations.

Me? I had a top secret clearance based on a special background investigation with access to multiple levels of sensistive compartmented information, special access programs and a variety of other compartmented programs.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Those of you with super-duper secret security clearances need to get off your high horses and not take it so personally when we need to take a look inside your carry-on.

Originally Posted by dgolding

Exempting cleared government (or contractor) staff from any sort of inspection is a poor idea. Not because it will make the skies more or less safe (TSA is probably neutral in that regard, post-911), but because it is important that government employees "enjoy" the exact same treatment as everyone else. Thats it - its simply about fairness. If cleared personel are exempt from some or all inspection, that would mean that senior TSA/DHS staff - all of whom are cleared - would also enjoy such an exemption. Thats a terrible idea. In industry, its called "eating your own dog food". Whatever you call it, it is doubly important when you are talking about government decision makers in a democracy.

The other issue is that terrorists are smart. If they know that cleared staff are exempt from certain screening, they will leverage that knowledge. Of course, this assumes that civil aviation is still a priority target for terrorists, a doubtful premise at this point time, considering the wide availability of much softer targets. These guys are not one-trick ponies.