Retaliatory secondary=bad
 

I'm afraid my last post may mislead some people. I am not happy about retaliatory secondaries. They are bad. They are a violation of TSA policies. They are a security vulnerability. They need to be reported. If the employees are acting the way they are supposed to, they have nothing to fear. If the employees involved are misbehaving, they deserve what's coming to them.

I love stories of the public putting abusive screeners in their place. Hopefully, that place is very quickly outside of government employment.

And, in case anyone needs it again, civil rights violations get reported to the civil rights office. http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/civilr...travelers.shtm

LAX about a year ago: "Take that, that, thing off your head" - TSO request to a lady in a full-on type religious headcovering that didn't speak English. Female TSO then rebuked the lady when she walked through the Metal Detector anyway. I was a couple of pax behind the lady and offered her help in her native language. TSO was not happy. End result - not pretty, for me. A full-on secondary, my stash of Protein Shakes uncovered, a missed flight, but a complimentary First Class Upgrade on the next flight when I told the UA GA why I had missed my flight. So yeah, sometimes there is a benefit to providing this public service.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

I'll keep this in mind when deciding where to schedule future trips.

I find this treatment disgusting, especially when perpetrated against visitors to our fair country. (I don't mean to assume anything, but most of the passengers I have met with religious head coverings who didn't speak English have been visitors.) I can assure you that this sort of treatment is not in line with TSA policies or training, and should be reported to the TSA Civil Rights office.

"Take that, that thing off your head"??!! Unacceptable. Simply unacceptable. All the other descriptions that come to my mind would violate the TOS. I do hope that TSO is no longer employed with TSA. (Although I expect he would be one of the "lifers."

Honestly, I have seen a lot of the "Got feedback?" replies coming thru our airport via the hands of screening managers. They use the info in the comment to try to track down the CP, screeners involved, supes on duty, etc. They are taking it seriously. I think this will be the best way to get complaints into the hands of the appropriate people. If you do decide to use the "Got feedback?" link, make sure you supply a lot of info. Time, date, airline, CP, screeners physical descriptions (names), maybe even a description of yourself (in case they review the videos). The more info you can give, the better the chance of getting something done. And remember, it takes a lot to have a bad TSO fired. Passengers complaining in writing is a good step.

As long as there is either secondary screening for secret reasons or non-verifiable "random" screening, abusive retaliatory screenings can't be curtailed because the TSO can always generate an excuse for the secondary.

Pax: I got a retaliatory secondary, why?
TSO: SSI
Pax: I'm filing a complaint/feedback form.
TSO to supervisor: Pax was fluttering his eyelids in the super-secret terrorist way so I gave him secondary.
Supervisor to TSO: Good job!

Same thing works for "random" screening.

IMO the small gains for random screening (and secret criteria) aren't worth the inevitable abuse. About the only random screening measures I support are those that are completely non-intrusive, such as ETD swabs on a laptop or the outside of a bag. They're effective, and for the most part they don't cause delays.

If TSA wants real random screening, it needs to be verifiable to both the pax and the supervisor that it was random. Though a contrived example, having each pax draw a straw out of a hat at the entrance to the checkpoint line, having one of every 25 straws be short, and giving those with short straws secondary, would be a verifiable form of random screening. We can all think of more high-tech ideas to do this, but the important part is that it is clear to the pax, TSOs, and supervisors who gets random secondary, why they get random secondary, and that the selection was out of the TSO's control.

The potential for abuse of "random" searches and secret criteria is IMO one reason cops aren't allowed to do them. Even for a stop/frisk, a cop needs "reasonable suspicion" that can be articulated both to his superiors and in a public courtroom.

The cases of obvious retaliatory secondaries described on FT are too numerous to link, and I don't know of any where the TSO was reprimanded let alone punished. The pax helping translate for woman in headscarf example above is a good one, but there are many others that are more subtle. But a unifying theme is that the secondary search is done in a way to be as slow as possible; TSOs know most pax are in a time crunch and they can use that to bully the pax.

This problem is so pervasive that TSA management has to know about it, yet they do nothing. There are some steps they could take to curtail it even under the current policies of secret criteria and non-verifiable random screenings, but they don't. For example, let any pax feeling they are getting a retaliatory secondary demand a supervisor watch the secondary with a stopwatch and let the pax demand a new TSO to perform the secondary other than the one who they think is retaliating. Or force TSA to compensate passengers who miss their flights due to secondary screening if the pax was a the checkpoint at least 30 minutes prior to his flight.

Based on that and the vagueness of even the published TSA rules--e.g., unlabeled liquid containers under 3.4 oz are permitted yet TSA refuses to post that on the website and some TSOs continue to confiscate such unlabeled containers--it is my belief that TSA wants to enable such bullying, intimidation, and power-tripping by TSOs, presumably as an enhanced "security" measure.

Not only does the TSA management know about the abuse, they don't care. DHS and TSA management don't care about the potential infringement of our civil liberties because to them, the increased security their policies allegedly provide is an acceptable tradeoff.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen someone from DHS advocate this BS rationale during interagency meetings. While we (the rest of the interagency) are generally succesful in beating back DHS attempts to spread their disrespect for the Constitution throughout the entire government, we are ineffective in moderating their behavior when they are operating within their statutory mandate.

TSOs (and BDOs) from individual airports can only detail what happens at their particular airport. At other airports it will be different; the TSA calls it designed inconsistency, you can imagine what I call it.

Bottom line: what any field TSA employee tells you applies only to one location.

I'd be surprised if they even considered trades, it's more like a divine right to them.

At airports, the relatively disciplined "reasonable suspicion" standard as you describe it has devolved to:

- A screener telling a cop, "I think I saw something;" or,
- A SPOTnik interrogating someone based on SSI criteria that they don't even have to articulate at all.

This new "standard" has resulted in (just guessing) multiple thousands of way out of line intrusive warrantless searches, detentions, and arrests. Shame on us for allowing it to happen.

We have yet to see a lot of "Got Feedback" responses at my airport. I'll certainly agree that the initial results seem promising, but I don't have enough data to have an informed opinion as to whether this is an effective tool nationwide.

For those using the "Got Feedback" tool, I would also recommend that you make your complaint as quickly as is feasible for you. We do get people who are trying to scam the government, in addition to the legitimate complaints. The more detail you provide, and the closer you are to the incident in question, the more TSA management can verify your complaint (and deal appropriately with the violators.)

Agreed. I understand TSA's apparent position that they don't want to give would-be terrorists info that would allow them to beat security. IMO, I think the TSA could tell the public much more about our practices without exposing us to that risk. If the public had better information, they would be better able to recognize abuse and breach of procedure. They could, then, better inform management about abuse and breaches of procedure that they witness. Result: Better quality work force (since we will have the documentation needed to fire bad employees), and probably better security. (If a bad screener ignores his training about religious head coverings or orthopedics, how do we know he pays any more attention to training related to security threats and vulnerabilities?)

I'm not sure I agree with random screening at all, actually.

From the TSA blog "To the commenters who have complained about receiving secondary screening despite not having alarmed the walk-through metal detector, there are several reasons why an airline passenger may receive additional screening. For example, some passengers are randomly selected for secondary screening in order to help detect dangerous items that might not alarm the metal detector. Adding this element of randomness to the process makes manipulating the system more difficult."
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/02/and-...r-lawyers.html

From the TSA blog "As to gate screening itself, we have special purpose checks for specific items and behaviors. We may also have a particular interest in different flights. We layer in some random activities so as not to raise attention when we do have a specific interest."
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/labels/questions.html

AS I said earlier on this thread, I believe the least restrictive means test ought to be applied to all government activities. Under that test, I'm not sure that random screening accomplishes either of the above stated goals with the minimum possible restriction of civil rights and liberties.

Of course, this opinion is based only on the incomplete information available to me in my current position.

Yeah, at TSA, we don't have that pesky fourth amendment that requires searches to be reasonable.:mad::mad::mad:
Seriously, though, report any and all potential abuse you see!!!
In the current climate, the only way to curtail abuse is to create a large paper trail which shows the pattern of abuse coming from a particular employee. Those of us who actually give a d*** about security or passenger rights don't like having the abusive employees around us either.

You have the right to request a supervisor at any time in the screening process. Get one, explain your concerns and requests, and see what happens. If they don't do the right thing, it's time to start working with the other avenues suggested on this and other threads.

By "unlabeled," do you mean that the container is not labeled as to volume? Those might be an issue if they are exactly at the 3.4 fl oz limit. Some of the SOP robots will take issue with any container that looks like it might be over 3.4 fl oz if they cannot verify the volume.

If you are talking about the generic containers you can buy at most stores and fill with your favorite products, there should be no problem. Most are labeled for volume on the bottom or on the side near the bottom. In fact, this is a great money saving option if you travel a lot, or if your favorite products don't come in "travel size." If you are hassled about these items, request a supervisor, etc.

Tradeoff??!!:mad::confused::o
I would argue that amendments 9 and 10 were written to specifically forbid such an approach. Then again, I am just a lay person, and there does not seem to be a lot of case law on amendments 9 and 10.
I really hate this attitude. Essentially, the people who advocate this approach are saying it is okay for them to violate their oath of office and the most essential parts of US law to "fight the ter'rists." I fail to see how betraying the highest ideals and founding principles of the USA is, in any way, "protecting" the US or her people.

Of course, having said that, I'll probably now be accused of sedition, or something.;)

Good point. Of course TSOs and BDOs don't have separate SOPs for each airport, or each individual. Violation is violation. Abuse is abuse.

It is my hope that us TSAers who are participating in these conversations can give you enough information that you will be able to call abuse for what it is when you see it.

Kip himself has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying these generic containers--even if unlabeled as to volume--are allowed. Yet there have been repeated incidents reported on FT and in the media of them being confiscated. In most of the cases, the container was no where near the limit; usually the pax reported having a larger labeled container in his freedom-baggie that could easily have been used by the TSO as a visual reference.

TSA could nearly eliminate this problem by explicitly stating on their 3-1-1 publications that un-labeled containers are allowed, but they won't. Simply putting the quote from Kip on the website would do it. That they refuse to implement such a simple fix to close a loophole that allows abuse is indication to me that they don't care about the abuse. My theory is that they like the vagueness in the published because it gives TSOs/BDOs more leeway and reduces the likelihood a pax will be able to prove abuse.

BOLO? :confused:

The stories you reference sound like TSOs not doing their job correctly. I suggest anyone with similar problems report the problem.

Be On the LookOut.