Most of those are simply statistics released to show what the agency is actually preventing from getting on planes. Some are more detailed than others, but if someone brings a gun or explosives or something of that nature into the checkpoint, it is just reported as that. I don't see much info released on the majority of people that have done that. The only place most of that info comes from is blotter reports or FOIA requests that are responded to... Most of that stuff is beyond my scope of ability to explain, I don't work at HQ so I am not privy to all the reasoning behind the release of info. I am merely observing what I interpret to be trends by the agency.

So using the same method of putting up the stats for what has been discovered at a checkpoint should be fair enough to put up stats of TSA employee wrong doing, right.

No names, locations or other information that could lead to identifying a person.

I think that was just a bit unfair, the accusations made by the person were wayyyy out of line. It alleged outright illegal actions and things that could get people fired for doing nothing but their job. Regardless of her mental state, the issue began to gain steam in the blogosphere and some media outlets were picking up on it and it was threatening to get to a national incident situation (think Bierfeld, etc). The team put together the original video spliced together to refute the accusations, then when there was an uproar about the fact that the video was edited, they released all cameras with a view of her in its entirety. It was simply a defense of the organization against statements that were completely different than what was on the video. The wording of the release was not accusatory, merely explanatory - in other words a textbook factual defense rightly executed against false claims.

If you were accused of beating an old lady with her own pocket book, when all you did was assist her across the street when she stumbled, wouldn't you mount a defense to the best of your abilities?

As for the Acting administrator, I can not presume to speak for her or the direction she is taking the agency, merely my opinions and interpretations.

I have already indicated I would like to see more transparency, but I don't know all the implications of that type of info release or the legal issues involved.

I have already indicated that I would like to see that. It would go a long way towards transparency, but again, I do not know the legal aspects or provisions that would hamper that.

I suspect, but do not know for certain, that posting such statistics on a per-checkpoint basis could be problematic. If the actual rate of TSO wrongdoing is low (as, after all, we all hope it is), publishing such statistics might actually end up inadvertently releasing confidential information. E.g. if you post that one TSO at this checkpoint was involved in X this month, it becomes a little easier to figure out who that one person was.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, of course. It just means that you may have to aggregate in much larger units ... say, nationwide.

Which is what Boggie Dog suggested when he said "no names, locations or other information that could lead to identifying a person".

Right after "nn passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents"
it could list:
"nn TSA employees were arrested for theft."
and
"nn TSA employees were suspended or fired for their actions while at work."

But that's a level of accountability we'll never see. 4, 8 and 17.