Is Bob getting hypersensitive?
 

Or is someone in TSA management riding his butt like a dime store pony?

Two PV posts in a row he's trying to counter bad press, once in a blog, and now responding to a cartoon.

I think he is walking a line. He knows that the regulars will not buy into the PR spin, but his bosses are demanding he clear the "good" name of the TSA.

No. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Look, people criticize Bob all the time for not talking about TSA when it hits current events ... putting up "puppy posts" and the like instead of talking about Crabtree or TSIs breaking temperature probes or NippleGate or whatever the TSA Foul-Up Du Jour happens to be.

In these two instances, Bob is actually trying to get out in front of the stories. Granted, he's got a viewpoint to promote. (Of course, so do I, and so does anyone else with a blog.) And, granted, the viewpoint he wants to promote puts TSA in a favorable light, and the stories give him a vehicle to do that.

So I'm inclined to give Bob some credit here. He posted two items about two recent events (if you call publishing an XKCD comic an "event") with TSA's reaction. Isn't that what he's supposed to be doing (among other things)?

Look, there are plenty of reasons to criticize TSA in general, and the TSA Blog in particular. But if we don't give TSA some positive reinforcement when they do things closer to the way we want them done, why should they bother changing? You get the behavior you reward.

Of course, I'm the eternal optimist. Your mileage may vary.

^ + 1

agreed and emphasis mine-could make for an interesting thread title ;) (and perhaps a very very very long thread ;))

+2^

I personally think that someone in the higher up area is starting to see some benefit in addressing things good and bad in a forward manner. The XK comic was hilarious and instead of being an officious jerk in the post, he actually used it to explain some of the procedures. It is GREAT (!!!) from a personal standpoint to see the blog being used this way. I hope that we continue to do it like this more. I I am the kind o fperson that when you tell me I screwed up (and I actually DID), I man up and take the hit, then learn and don't do it again. I understand that the agency can't do that (all the time) for legal reasons, but when we get caught with a bad policy and we change it, I would like to see a bit more admission - you know, "Hey, we mucked it up good, and we apologize, the situation has been corrected and we are doing some new and extra training to insure this doesn't happen again" (I know, I know). I keep trying to explain (to some of the posters here and at TSAB, that the agency is not going to comment openly about things like TSOs busted for theft (legal reasons), bad behavior (again with the legal reasons) and lack of consistency (SOP). I also think that when someone has a hissy fit on the checkpoint, that they should be disciplined immediately. The crappy attitude on the checkpoint has no place in ANY work location, but especially in a location that serves 2mil a day. It just irritates me when I hear about TSOs being an ..., when I bust it so hard to be polite and help everyone that comes through. Whoa, sorry for the rant.... This was a long winded way of saying I am happy we are using the blog in a proactive manner.:D

"Legal reasons" is a cop out. If they can expose an unstable passenger they can make a statement about TSOs being busted for theft. They can even throw in that catch all disclaimer of "All parties are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Other than that I agree with your post.

Yes, you're right. Too bad your pointing all that just prompts a spew of TSA backpatting and predictably from the TSA eternal apologist calling itself jkhuggins. Some things never change, and the TSA and its apologists never will.:rolleyes:

Interesting take.

Yes, Bob is trying in these two specific instances to be forthcoming. Big deal. You want to pat him on the back for his positive actions in this instance, go right ahead. In the end, however, all you are doing is providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

I know some will regard the above statement as overly harsh, but I agree with Spiff about TSA being as "un-American" an agency or organization as they come. In addition to all of the public examples showcased here and in other places on the web, I see TSA and DHS abuses and incompetence up close and personal inside the bowels of government. The citizens of this country are being ill-served at best, and abused at worst by TSA, and while it is indeed human nature to reward someone when they do something positive, I don't see how patting Bob on the head and telling him "good job" is going to produce meaningful change in TSA.

The TSA blog is nothing more than scandalous government propaganda, and it deserves all of the scorn and abuse it receives.

I agree that the no comment on ongoing investigations type of statement is a full blown cop out, however it seems to be the standard reply of federal agencies in most cases. If there are truly egregious offenses, it seems that they tend to be a bit more forthcoming, but until that point, it is a wait and see what happens before we make a statement. The unstable passenger thing was simply a response to something she wrote first and is a bit different. If I post something derogatory about the agency (especially something that is so vastly different than what actually happened), then I deserve to be exposed and all the ridicule that comes with it - simply because I instigated the situation in the first place.

I would love, love, love to see the agency post something along the lines of "a TSO in podunk was caught stealing cell phones from luggage and is currently being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law", but then some rights activists and attorneys would accuse the government agency of "trying the case in public and trying to poison a possible jury pool before we even get to court". Then it becomes a circus and he said we said they have no proof jumble and nothing ever happens to the bad apple that was stealing or if something does happen it is watered down because there was so much bruhaha over the whole thing that no one really knows what happened.... Wow run on sentence from hades. You get the picture, I personally would love to have a blotter report submitted weekly (or daily if there is enough reason) to the public, but it is just not how the government seems to handle things.

Why not??? You freely publish a weekly blotter of college students with fake IDs and passengers arrested for suspicious behavior.

I got nothing other than it is probably not something legal advisors would recommend. Maybe something to do with the trying the case in public instead of the court room, or prejudicing the public - things like that. Just like when most Presidential misstatements or falsehoods (regardless of which president you are speaking of) are downplayed or completely glossed over in some circumstances. Also like many of the other federal branches don't release much info on things even after a trial and conviction. Most of that stuff is reported from a law enforcement blotter release as opposed to the organization releasing it. It must be better PR in some way because a lot of agencies and companies do it. I actually agree with you that it could go a long way towards transparency and commincation, but it just doesn't seem to be what happens most times. Also, there may be some law or directive that I have missed that prevents the release, one of those that I know of are the privacy act laws. Those prevent the release of a lot of information about someone in federal employ due to personnel rules. I am not an attorney, and only have a laymans grip on the infomration laws, so I may have missed something else they have in place as well.

And how many of them are, in the end, convicted of their crimes? Seems like the TSA is pronouncing these people guilty before they have been tried - but that's the TSA way, isn't it?

...all it takes is a stroke of a pen from your Acting Administrator, provided she isn't too busy executing a blog attack on a woman with a suspected emotional issue.

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. ;)