Ah, so that's what you were doing the other 59 minutes of the game (Mike ducks.). :D

Mike

TSA does not have a good record on announcing changes to the screening process. For example, when the policy about WTMD alarms was changed from max-one alarm to max-two (how many alarms you were allowed before automatically being sent to additional screening), there was no public announcement about that. When the policy further changed from max-two to unlimited attempts, there was still no announced policy change.

And there's been many, many more.

I think it would be simpler and just as accurate to say:

TSA does not have a good record!

It's a very valid point, the TSA couldn't communicate that shoe on the belt instead of in a bin was optional. There are still TSO's who don't understand that policy change either.

Did you mean Police State Agency?

Sadly, yes!:mad:

So, all we need to do to get idiotic screening rules changed is to get some celebrity to insist on not undergoing screening?

Let's ask Shaq to refuse to take off his size 21's!

And let's ask Steve Jobs to refuse to take his Powerbook out!

tp update
 

No there is nothing officially out on the money/search issue.
The frozen liquids rule change was before Britney in LA.
Any liquid in with the ice over 100 ml will prohibit it from being allowed.

If that were the case, then the vast majority of drug interdiction law enforcement would be as well. I'm amused by this change in policy insomuch as I've seen a number of cases where part of an officer's stated reasons justifying a continued detention, search, etc. has been the presence of >about $1000 in cash. Large amounts of cash mean drugs, right, because since drug dealers accumulate large amounts of cash, then conversely, anyone with large amounts of cash must be a drug dealer, right?

Kudos to someone for finally getting woken up (through bad publicity involving the Paul aide, if nothing else) to the logical fallacy.

If I am reading you right, I could have 500ml of ice and 50ml of liquid and be good to go.

On the currency issue check OD-400-54-6 "Discovery of Currency During the Screening Process" Effective October 29, 2009

It's not really a fair comparison, though. As has been pointed out many times here, TSOs are not law enforcement officers, and do not carry the authority of a LEO. (For example: a TSO can't place a passenger under arrest, except perhaps for a citizen's arrest.)

I'm not a LEO or a lawyer, so I have no way to comment on whether or not finding a large quantity of cash gives a LEO probable cause to search for drugs. But TSOs aren't tasked with searching for drugs; they're tasked to search for WEIs, and only WEIs. A large quantity of cash isn't a threat to aviation safety, and thus shouldn't result in any further action.

OD-400-54-6: public domain?
 

I'm on the phone with someone from TSA's FOIA office who called about my November 6, 2009, FOIA request for OD-400-54-6. She believes it's in the public domain, but has not yet been able to point me to any place that it's available on the Web. Has anyone seen it?

false alarm
 

15 minutes later, we (Ms. LaWood at the TSA FOIA office and I) found that what she located and called me about is OD-400-54-2, "Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process", effective May 9, 2005. That one was published as part of the Bierfeldt case, and I received a copy of it via FOIA request in February, 2009. She said contrary to my suspicion, finding OD-400-54-6 is not as simple as turning four pages past OD-400-54-2 in a book of TSA operational directives. So my request remains open.

Who would have thunk-it, TSA can screw up filing Directives.

You know I don't defend TSA ;), but I work with standards in completely different areas and the numbering concepts are often similar. It's likely that "-2" refers to the second revision of OD-400-54, and "-6" is the sixth revision, rather than 2 and 6 being page numbers in the same book. In the olden days (in my area), a new printed book would be issued every few years with the most recent revisions of all the standards; now (still in my area) they're issued electronically and individually so that a person has to keep up with them as they come out. BD's probably got it right; Ms LaWood's filing system is out of date.