TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread
Aug 24, 2006 | 11:34 pm
#332
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MUC/LAX/SMV
Programs: LH, UA, BD, AA, NW, FB, NH, AC, Sixt, Hertz, Avis, *W, HH, Marriott, PC, Leaders Club, AMEX
Posts: 12,406
Originally Posted by bethster
The topic of discussion is the restrictions as they pertain to AMERICAN passengers and our rights as AMERICANS.
The topic of discussion is the restrictions as they pertain to air travellers to, from and within the USA.
We could open seperate threads for each nationality of air travellers (discussing each nationality's constitution and its application to "citizens" as opposed to "the people" and the impact of TSA telling other countries how to handle security for flights to the U.S.), but I'll happily leave that to OMNI, as it really doesn't help the topic, which is, as pointed out by Cholula, the ever-changing TSA regulations and their impact on air travellers.
This, btw, means air travellers worldwide, because other countries usually (have to) copy these ever-changing TSA regulations for flights to the U.S.
Aug 24, 2006 | 11:48 pm
#333
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 250
What older people may have noticed (and younger not) is that the way governing authorities deal with OTHERS from the individual citizen to the other nation has gradually changed. While giving token lip service to the precept of "innocent until proven guilty" our "authorities" have actually moved toward a "defacto" presumption that... everyone- from the individual citizen to other global nations are to be treated as if they were guilty and a "potential threat" UNLESS ANY AND EVERY MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE EMPOWERED IS DENIED TO THEM. Our great nation has degenerated into a fearful trembling bully who fears everyone, trusts no one, and is only comfortable and fearless among those people and nations over which it has total control and over which it has overwhelming power. We are no longer at ease among empowered people and nations, accepting others as equal, and/or respecting differences and other nations right to defend themselves EVEN AGAINST US. Every nation and person now must be utterly "disarmed" and made powerless to resist WHATEVER our authorities and nation decides ought to be their portion and fate. The rules be damned, they make the rules and no rules apply to our authorities either on the international scale nor on the individual citizen to "authority" aspect. The "authorities" have carefully laid down an escape web of legal bypasses and semantic obstacles to the enforcement of every constitutional, common law and legislative restraint and measure of accountability that has ever been imposed to limit their abuse of power.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
Last edited by AINITFUNNY; Aug 25, 2006 at 12:00 am
Aug 25, 2006 | 12:23 am
#334
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TSA HQ
Programs: TSA Platinum
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by AINITFUNNY
What older people may have noticed (and younger not) is that the way governing authorities deal with OTHERS from the individual citizen to the other nation has gradually changed. While giving token lip service to the precept of "innocent until proven guilty" our "authorities" have actually moved toward a "defacto" presumption that... everyone- from the individual citizen to other global nations are to be treated as if they were guilty and a "potential threat" UNLESS ANY AND EVERY MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE EMPOWERED IS DENIED TO THEM. Our great nation has degenerated into a fearful trembling bully who fears everyone, trusts no one, and is only comfortable and fearless among those people and nations over which it has total control and over which it has overwhelming power. We are no longer at ease among empowered people and nations, accepting others as equal, and/or respecting differences and other nations right to defend themselves EVEN AGAINST US. Every nation and person now must be utterly "disarmed" and made powerless to resist WHATEVER our authorities and nation decides ought to be their portion and fate. The rules be damned, they make the rules and no rules apply to our authorities either on the international scale nor on the individual citizen to "authority" aspect. The "authorities" have carefully laid down an escape web of legal bypasses and semantic obstacles to the enforcement of every constitutional, common law and legislative restraint and measure of accountability that has ever been imposed to limit their abuse of power.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
Unfortunately, many of the populace are too lazy to prevent this from happening.
Aug 25, 2006 | 12:42 am
#335
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Originally Posted by bethster
While your attempts at poetic flattery are not lost on me, you are missing the point.
I should not be deprived of ANYTHING because I am a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting, hardworking AMERICAN CITIZEN.
I should not be deprived of ANYTHING because I am a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting, hardworking AMERICAN CITIZEN.
If you recall, I posted the following:
Originally Posted by Dovster
Do I think I am getting better security for this? No.
Do I believe that a trained terrorist will be able to work around these regulations? Yes.
Do I wish that a more logical system of security were in effect? Of course.
Do I believe that a trained terrorist will be able to work around these regulations? Yes.
Do I wish that a more logical system of security were in effect? Of course.
I would feel more comfortable being on a plane with a WWII veteran who is holding his old M-1 carbine than I would with an Al Qaeda member armed with nothing more than a ballpoint pen.
For all of that, I am not willing to go overboard in my reaction to these rules. I miss, for example, being able to carry my Zippo with me and lighting up as soon as I get to a spot where I am allowed to smoke, but I won't let that stop me from flying.
As far as my "flattering" of you is concerned, it might, indeed, happen if I knew what you looked like but, alas, I don't. The only thing I really know about you which could lead me to flattery is that you have remarkably good taste when selecting the second half of a user name.
Aug 25, 2006 | 1:32 am
#336
In memoriam
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: AA EXP "Life is good! Really good.""
Posts: 4,923
Originally Posted by Dovster
....
So, no, I don't support the TSA's methods or rules. Indeed, I have been saying on this forum for years that America should follow the Israeli system, which emphasizes looking for terrorists, not looking for weapons....
So, no, I don't support the TSA's methods or rules. Indeed, I have been saying on this forum for years that America should follow the Israeli system, which emphasizes looking for terrorists, not looking for weapons....
I agree with Dov, and recently have been thinking about my two trips through Israeli airport security. It was qute a different experience from most airport security. Not unpleasant, but serious. You couldn't just blow them off and mumble something, they made eye contact and asked you to listen up and pay attention. Politely. (Some of the FTers attending the TLV DO elicited much more attention, and were quite disturbed, but they were in a different demographic group than I.
)Indian security has always been pretty heavy-handed, but one comes away thinking they at least know what they're looking for. They've been wanding travelers and confiscating batteries for years. You step off a flight and there's a guy with a machine gun observing the area and sweeping the plane interior between takeoffs.
Another thread pointed out that TLV only has 40+ flights a day, and their methods would be impossible say at Heathrow or DFW. Not if we're serious about security.
What needs to be decided is whether we are serious or not. If we are, we can do it, we just have to do it in a rational way. Asking travelers to throw out makeup and medicine to make the TSA's job easier is insane. And complaining that it's un-American to be questioned is also insane.
The TSA guy at the scanner needs to be trained and empowered to make decisions, not forced to follow a set of rules that may or may not be applicable to the situation. And they need to improve their attitude.
You all are going to laugh, but I think any good Nordstom exec could turn this fiasco around and make the security checkpoints less demeaning, more effective and for god's sake faster. Mostly by doing the Nordstrom thing of empowering their frontline people to make decisions that make sense. (And it's a given they wouldn't be taking away our toothpaste and lipstick!)
Aug 25, 2006 | 5:53 am
#337
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by bethster
That's a cheap anti-American shot that is wholly undeserved. "Do they even exist in (my) world?" I've been all over the planet, so spare me the typical non-American-toward-native-American condescension....
Bruce
Aug 25, 2006 | 5:58 am
#338
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by AINITFUNNY
What older people may have noticed (and younger not) is that the way governing authorities deal with OTHERS from the individual citizen to the other nation has gradually changed. While giving token lip service to the precept of "innocent until proven guilty" our "authorities" have actually moved toward a "defacto" presumption that... everyone- from the individual citizen to other global nations are to be treated as if they were guilty and a "potential threat" UNLESS ANY AND EVERY MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE EMPOWERED IS DENIED TO THEM. Our great nation has degenerated into a fearful trembling bully who fears everyone, trusts no one, and is only comfortable and fearless among those people and nations over which it has total control and over which it has overwhelming power. We are no longer at ease among empowered people and nations, accepting others as equal, and/or respecting differences and other nations right to defend themselves EVEN AGAINST US. Every nation and person now must be utterly "disarmed" and made powerless to resist WHATEVER our authorities and nation decides ought to be their portion and fate. The rules be damned, they make the rules and no rules apply to our authorities either on the international scale nor on the individual citizen to "authority" aspect. The "authorities" have carefully laid down an escape web of legal bypasses and semantic obstacles to the enforcement of every constitutional, common law and legislative restraint and measure of accountability that has ever been imposed to limit their abuse of power.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
Bruce
Aug 25, 2006 | 6:24 am
#339
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Op Ed piece
Originally Posted by AINITFUNNY
What older people may have noticed (and younger not) is that the way governing authorities deal with OTHERS from the individual citizen to the other nation has gradually changed. While giving token lip service to the precept of "innocent until proven guilty" our "authorities" have actually moved toward a "defacto" presumption that... everyone- from the individual citizen to other global nations are to be treated as if they were guilty and a "potential threat" UNLESS ANY AND EVERY MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE EMPOWERED IS DENIED TO THEM. Our great nation has degenerated into a fearful trembling bully who fears everyone, trusts no one, and is only comfortable and fearless among those people and nations over which it has total control and over which it has overwhelming power. We are no longer at ease among empowered people and nations, accepting others as equal, and/or respecting differences and other nations right to defend themselves EVEN AGAINST US. Every nation and person now must be utterly "disarmed" and made powerless to resist WHATEVER our authorities and nation decides ought to be their portion and fate. The rules be damned, they make the rules and no rules apply to our authorities either on the international scale nor on the individual citizen to "authority" aspect. The "authorities" have carefully laid down an escape web of legal bypasses and semantic obstacles to the enforcement of every constitutional, common law and legislative restraint and measure of accountability that has ever been imposed to limit their abuse of power.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
And if you once saw how strong, confident and self-reliant American authority once walked among it's empowered individuals and even among other strong, armed nations you would feel sad for the changes that have taken place.
Aug 25, 2006 | 8:24 am
#341
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by Bart
So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it is about this specific threat that prompted this general ban on all liquids, gels and lotions.
Backing off the beverage ban (as you predicted would happen rather quickly) can not happen now without the skeptics asking very difficult questions like: "If they're safe on Aug 25, why weren't they safe on Aug 10 when screeners acted the part of thugs and bullies by confiscating medicine from sick children?"
And since there's no logical (or acceptable) answer to that question, the beverage ban (and the general liquid ban, subject to its myriad exceptions) must remain.
Still find lots of job satisfaction in being a TSA screener?
Aug 25, 2006 | 8:31 am
#342
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TSA HQ
Programs: TSA Platinum
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by Bart
Friends,
As some of you may have read in today's news already, it appears that the liquid ban is going to be around for a while longer. The concern is over certain non-explosive chemicals which can be lethal when mixed with other substances. Each, by itself, would pass ETD scrutiny because the substance, by itself, is not explosive. Bottom line: we need a better mouse trap.
My personal view is that I can't believe that it's as easy as mixing a bottle of substance "x" with a bottle of substance "y" in the confines of an airplane lavatory and presto: enough explosive to blow an airplane out of the sky. Makes for a great storyline in an adventure thriller, but I'm not sure it's a realistic threat. Seems to me that if it was as easy as that, then the bad guys would have figured this out a long time ago.
What does make sense to me is the 75% solution. In other words, the explosive is 75% complete and all the bomber has to do is introduce component "y" to make it a real bomb. However, I would think that the 75% component would be detectable because it would have the same characteristics as an explosive minus a couple of elements. And we have plenty of ETD alarms (what some of you call "false positives") that may at least serve as a rational method of detection, or at least serve as the basis for additional scrutiny.
I'm not a chemist and can't speak with much authority on this. However, my experience in the Army tells me that the reason we worked with ready-made explosives is because they were stable until detonated. In other words, to work with any improvised explosive charge is to work with something that is unpredictable and unstable. There are too many ways it can detonate prematurely or accidentally, or not detonate at all. So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it is about this specific threat that prompted this general ban on all liquids, gels and lotions.
I don't know if there's a middle ground here. I don't know if, for instance, the real culprit is anything that contains peroxide, that it would be feasible to ban all items that contain elements of peroxide. I don't know if it would be equally as effective to ETD all liquids and gels, for example, and prohibit them only if they alarm the ETD even though we may have mitigated their alarms prior to 8/10. This may slow down the screening process to a snail's pace and the easier alternative may be to just ban everything that is liquid or gel.
One part that bothers me is the apparent lack of confidence the bozos up the chain have in the screening workforce. I've been a member of some pretty elite organizations and the backbone of our effectiveness was always training, training and more training. It is how we maintained our proficiency. While I mean no direct comparison between these units and TSA, I will say that TSA is one of the most training-intensive organizations I've seen. We really get trained from all angles ranging from classroom instruction to online computer courses to no-notice performance evaluations to no-notice pop quizzes to special briefings. My point here is that with all that training, for TSA to place a general ban is to say that the staff weenies don't have confidence that we can tell the difference between a tampered bottle of liquid and untampered one. Again, this goes back to my number one criticism of TSA, its lack of effective leadership.
For those of you who question my motives (thanks for the hate mail, you've been promptly deleted, ignored and reported): I come here primarily to share information that will hopefully make your next experience at the security checkpoint a little less frustrating or to at least shed some insider perspectives. I don't violate any SSI restrictions although some may argue that I pretty much step right up to the line. I refer to my military background from time to time because I am, indeed, an expert in certain areas, particularly in counter-terrorism, and can offer some additional insights from that perspective.
As some of you may have read in today's news already, it appears that the liquid ban is going to be around for a while longer. The concern is over certain non-explosive chemicals which can be lethal when mixed with other substances. Each, by itself, would pass ETD scrutiny because the substance, by itself, is not explosive. Bottom line: we need a better mouse trap.
My personal view is that I can't believe that it's as easy as mixing a bottle of substance "x" with a bottle of substance "y" in the confines of an airplane lavatory and presto: enough explosive to blow an airplane out of the sky. Makes for a great storyline in an adventure thriller, but I'm not sure it's a realistic threat. Seems to me that if it was as easy as that, then the bad guys would have figured this out a long time ago.
What does make sense to me is the 75% solution. In other words, the explosive is 75% complete and all the bomber has to do is introduce component "y" to make it a real bomb. However, I would think that the 75% component would be detectable because it would have the same characteristics as an explosive minus a couple of elements. And we have plenty of ETD alarms (what some of you call "false positives") that may at least serve as a rational method of detection, or at least serve as the basis for additional scrutiny.
I'm not a chemist and can't speak with much authority on this. However, my experience in the Army tells me that the reason we worked with ready-made explosives is because they were stable until detonated. In other words, to work with any improvised explosive charge is to work with something that is unpredictable and unstable. There are too many ways it can detonate prematurely or accidentally, or not detonate at all. So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it is about this specific threat that prompted this general ban on all liquids, gels and lotions.
I don't know if there's a middle ground here. I don't know if, for instance, the real culprit is anything that contains peroxide, that it would be feasible to ban all items that contain elements of peroxide. I don't know if it would be equally as effective to ETD all liquids and gels, for example, and prohibit them only if they alarm the ETD even though we may have mitigated their alarms prior to 8/10. This may slow down the screening process to a snail's pace and the easier alternative may be to just ban everything that is liquid or gel.
One part that bothers me is the apparent lack of confidence the bozos up the chain have in the screening workforce. I've been a member of some pretty elite organizations and the backbone of our effectiveness was always training, training and more training. It is how we maintained our proficiency. While I mean no direct comparison between these units and TSA, I will say that TSA is one of the most training-intensive organizations I've seen. We really get trained from all angles ranging from classroom instruction to online computer courses to no-notice performance evaluations to no-notice pop quizzes to special briefings. My point here is that with all that training, for TSA to place a general ban is to say that the staff weenies don't have confidence that we can tell the difference between a tampered bottle of liquid and untampered one. Again, this goes back to my number one criticism of TSA, its lack of effective leadership.
For those of you who question my motives (thanks for the hate mail, you've been promptly deleted, ignored and reported): I come here primarily to share information that will hopefully make your next experience at the security checkpoint a little less frustrating or to at least shed some insider perspectives. I don't violate any SSI restrictions although some may argue that I pretty much step right up to the line. I refer to my military background from time to time because I am, indeed, an expert in certain areas, particularly in counter-terrorism, and can offer some additional insights from that perspective.
However, I find it very amusing that there are many sheople out there who excuse the egregious TSA behavior, defending these mindless actions as "anything for security!!"
I find these sheople are receiving the security that they truly deserve.
However, it is refreshing to find voices of sanity on both sides of the coin, on this forum.
Aug 25, 2006 | 8:49 am
#344
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by Bart
I'm not a chemist and can't speak with much authority on this. However, my experience in the Army tells me that the reason we worked with ready-made explosives is because they were stable until detonated. In other words, to work with any improvised explosive charge is to work with something that is unpredictable and unstable. There are too many ways it can detonate prematurely or accidentally, or not detonate at all. So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it is about this specific threat that prompted this general ban on all liquids, gels and lotions.
They ain't AFAIK.
As to why the Great Liquid Menace is currently such a BFD, I'm hard-pressed to explain it, even with my political skepticism and legendary "hatred" of the TSA
.It may simply be yet another manifestation of Uhlman's Razor.
Aug 25, 2006 | 10:46 am
#345
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
Originally Posted by Bart
One part that bothers me is the apparent lack of confidence the bozos up the chain have in the screening workforce. I've been a member of some pretty elite organizations and the backbone of our effectiveness was always training, training and more training. It is how we maintained our proficiency. While I mean no direct comparison between these units and TSA, I will say that TSA is one of the most training-intensive organizations I've seen. We really get trained from all angles ranging from classroom instruction to online computer courses to no-notice performance evaluations to no-notice pop quizzes to special briefings. My point here is that with all that training, for TSA to place a general ban is to say that the staff weenies don't have confidence that we can tell the difference between a tampered bottle of liquid and untampered one. Again, this goes back to my number one criticism of TSA, its lack of effective leadership.
With respect to the specific quote above, I can add a little perspective. I am currently on a job search, focused on the DC area. Although I have a high-level management background, I have little interest in working in the government - I don't care for the politics, I don't care for the inability to effect change in agencies (unlike private sector, it's not easy to make the necessary changes in policies, procedures, or personnel), and I don't care for the public scrutiny that invariably comes with the position. That being said, as I visit with people in my network in the DC area, I am almost universally told about what a mess DHS and its divisions are, the lack of management skills or common sense, and the difficulty they have hiring people that understand both sides of the equation. In other words, we have an agency tasked with national security that is a "mess" (my friends' words) but can't find people who will step up. I won't go into a situation where I can't achieve change and be a success - and I don't know any other motivated private sector person that will.
(As a side note, I heard the story of one DHS employee that ended up interviewing with the executive director. When asked how he had spent the last 9 months out of work, he said "I took training classes". The director looked at him and said "I don't know what position you're interviewing for, but whatever it is, you're hired".)
I really don't want to get into a political discussion, but until the stature of high-level government employees changes, and until the institutional issues with the government changes, and until the media changes (none of which I see happening anytime soon), the "system" will continue to have a lack of leadership.
Most of us here know, and I surmise from your postings that you know, the impact of ill-informed management decisions in this area. But until there are major changes in DC, starting from the top, this will continue to be a festering issue.
My point is: I agree, and a lot of people agree that agency leadership is lacking. And there are 'employment opportunities' within that leadership. But a lot of otherwise qualified people won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Anyway, thanks for being willing to jump into the lion's den here.