Call to arms.
Jan 4, 2010, 11:48 am
#211
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Nothing but knee-jerk nonsense and panic - truth that no one in DHS or TSA knows what the hell they're doing. Pure, utter incompetence. Perhaps it escaped the TSA's knowledge that many people wear a unique device called a 'watch.' By using a simple formula based on changing variables of distance, speed and time, one can easily estimate their position relative to known variables (elapsed time, likely groundspeed, historical route of flight) - they don't need a moving map display to pull it off.
I've been out of the discussion fray about this incident because I was on the road when it happened and offline, but the chatter about it follows the same formula as usual:
1. TV news is run by idiots and liars
2. Politicians are idiots and liars
3. Peter King and Lieberman are both egotistical, opportunistic, gasbag idiots and liars
4. TV news talking head pundits know nothing except how to earn money from the sound of their own voice
5. Ma and Pa Kettle can always be called upon to agree to anything when someone waves a new bogeyman in their face
This incident had nothing to do with aviation security - it was all about the federal government, yet again, failing to identify a threat, recognize a risk and take pre-emptive action. They were called by the guy's father. He was already on a list. They failed to take action to revoke his visa and/or place him on a real no-fly list. Simple as that.
All of this chatter about airport security and WBIs and patdowns and banning this and that are pure nonsense when every single issue we've had in this country, from Oklahoma City through the WTC bombings through 9/11 through Reid and now the underwear bomber we're been waiting for can be traced to a failure on the part of the government to take available evidence and intelligence and act on it. Simple as that.
And again, we're going to suffer for their incompetence - and again, nothing will change. Meanwhile, the only thing the TSA can pick its lazy a$$ up off the ground to do is coerce two people into handing over their laptops so they can figure out who released a so-called 'super secret' security directive that only listed out the obvious.
Pathetic.
I've been out of the discussion fray about this incident because I was on the road when it happened and offline, but the chatter about it follows the same formula as usual:
1. TV news is run by idiots and liars
2. Politicians are idiots and liars
3. Peter King and Lieberman are both egotistical, opportunistic, gasbag idiots and liars
4. TV news talking head pundits know nothing except how to earn money from the sound of their own voice
5. Ma and Pa Kettle can always be called upon to agree to anything when someone waves a new bogeyman in their face
This incident had nothing to do with aviation security - it was all about the federal government, yet again, failing to identify a threat, recognize a risk and take pre-emptive action. They were called by the guy's father. He was already on a list. They failed to take action to revoke his visa and/or place him on a real no-fly list. Simple as that.
All of this chatter about airport security and WBIs and patdowns and banning this and that are pure nonsense when every single issue we've had in this country, from Oklahoma City through the WTC bombings through 9/11 through Reid and now the underwear bomber we're been waiting for can be traced to a failure on the part of the government to take available evidence and intelligence and act on it. Simple as that.
And again, we're going to suffer for their incompetence - and again, nothing will change. Meanwhile, the only thing the TSA can pick its lazy a$$ up off the ground to do is coerce two people into handing over their laptops so they can figure out who released a so-called 'super secret' security directive that only listed out the obvious.
Pathetic.
Jan 4, 2010, 11:56 am
#212
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
What I am referring to is if the TSO/TSA employee is involved in something away from duty, it could possibly fall under state codes. There are certain situations that may call for the state to take lead or the feds may relinquish prosecution to the state for their own reasons. I am (again, I am beginning to sound rather slow this week) sadly ignorant of the specific codes/regulations covering this.
When I worked as an MP in the Army, and we had some cases that were moved to local or state courts because the federal prosecutor (JAG) felt that local courts had a better chance of obtaining a conviction. Something of that nature may come into play in a case involving an employee.
So, rather than just outright agree with you, I would have to see what the federal prosecutor does on a case by case basis.
When I worked as an MP in the Army, and we had some cases that were moved to local or state courts because the federal prosecutor (JAG) felt that local courts had a better chance of obtaining a conviction. Something of that nature may come into play in a case involving an employee.
So, rather than just outright agree with you, I would have to see what the federal prosecutor does on a case by case basis.
Jan 4, 2010, 12:38 pm
#214
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A Capital City on The East Coast
Programs: CO-Dirt,SPG-Nothing,Marriott-Gold, Hilton-Blue, Hyatt-Plat, HI-Plat
Posts: 6,872
There are specific directions for specific things. If we find something we suspect to be kiddie porn we are required to report it. If we find something we suspect are drugs we are required to report it. There is no way for us to determine of the content of a DVD is illegal or not in a bag search environment.
Thank goodness, at least for now, LEOs must at least have a reasonable suspicion before they can at least get a warrant
Also note the statement- "in a bag search environment", I imagine that there are ways to make that into "just a search environment"(private room)
Only on leaving the US or is that any flight?
Jan 4, 2010, 3:33 pm
#215
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 376
irrelevant...they are not customs agents...how do they know if you have declared it or not?
However, practically speaking...I am alright with this one above all others. Why? Because of the continued, ongoing, appalling problem with TSA theft.
Back on TK's general call to arms though. Its going to take more than just repelling this push for all the WBI's. While the major news networks haven't picked up on it yet from what I can see (they rely on the same phenomenon of fear as the TSA to make money). There is definitely an increased push back this time from many sources. It is time to really push back. Push back on their procedures and push back on their behavoir. Their agency has been embarrassed and all of us know the standard reaction when a TSO is embarassed..it involves retribution and we know that excuse number 11 is just an excuse.
Its our turn for a little retribution here. My vote is next time your are verbally harassed by a TSO, go to the nearest LEO and ask to file a police report. Screw the STSO, screw dealing with the TSA. Punitive retribution seems to be the only thing they understand.
As far as I can tell...the following would be fun to try out at the TSA verbally threatening you. Almost no chance it would hold but it would make a fun local news story.
Menacing (NY Penal code 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical
menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another
person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical
injury.)
Harassment (240.26 Harassment in the second degree A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose. ) (empahsis mine)
Disorderly Conduct (Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.)
However, practically speaking...I am alright with this one above all others. Why? Because of the continued, ongoing, appalling problem with TSA theft.
Back on TK's general call to arms though. Its going to take more than just repelling this push for all the WBI's. While the major news networks haven't picked up on it yet from what I can see (they rely on the same phenomenon of fear as the TSA to make money). There is definitely an increased push back this time from many sources. It is time to really push back. Push back on their procedures and push back on their behavoir. Their agency has been embarrassed and all of us know the standard reaction when a TSO is embarassed..it involves retribution and we know that excuse number 11 is just an excuse.
Its our turn for a little retribution here. My vote is next time your are verbally harassed by a TSO, go to the nearest LEO and ask to file a police report. Screw the STSO, screw dealing with the TSA. Punitive retribution seems to be the only thing they understand.
As far as I can tell...the following would be fun to try out at the TSA verbally threatening you. Almost no chance it would hold but it would make a fun local news story.
Menacing (NY Penal code 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical
menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another
person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical
injury.)
Harassment (240.26 Harassment in the second degree A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose. ) (empahsis mine)
Disorderly Conduct (Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.)
Jan 5, 2010, 10:11 am
#216
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
TSO says he would ignore drugs while inspecting bags, also that he would report them.
So if while searching someone's belongings with your X-ray machine, you see something that looks like a bag of plant matter and some rolling papers, a bag of powder along with a scale, razor blade, and a straw, a bag of powder with a syringe and a tourniquet, a big bag of pills, a bong, a fancy glass pipe, a large quantity of cash, a bunch of credit cards, or a bunch of passports, you're going to ignore that thing and move on? I find that hard to believe.
The other items (depending on what they look like, some of the stuff you list here would be dense enough to cause a bag check based on a possible threat) would possibly be discovered while looking for the razor blade. IF there is nothing in the bag that looks like a threat or possible threat, then the bag rolls on. Sorry if you don't believe me, but I really don't care. I tell you what I have done in the past and would do now on xray, whether you believe or not is not my problem.
West, this is so simple: 1) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, what do you do? 2) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like a weapon, what do you do? Ron tells us that the next step in each case is the same: get a supervisor involved. Is that correct? If so, how can you say that you are searching for weapons but not for drugs?
What you keep trying to make out is that all TSOs go into a bag looking for drugs or money and anything else that would be "the big catch" and it is just not true. Many of the TSOs would rather go through their entire career without finding anything other than the odd pocket knife or soda (it means that they are safer in general AND they don't have to run the chance of testifying in court!). Some TSOs may say they are doing this, and to those I say - Bad idea, it can get you in trouble.
If you were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras, you'd probably ignore it and move on, right? It would look like an indication of transporting stolen goods, but it's not on the list of things you're told to look out for, right? You could do the same thing when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, but you do not, because those are on the list of things you're told to look out for, right?
Look, I don't want to overemphasize the drug issue, here. Full disclosure: I whole-heartedly believe that our nation's prohibition of the drugs we prohibit now has been even more of a failure than our previous prohibition of another drug: alcohol. Same gang violence, same corruption, same making criminals out of good people, same lack of control, same lack of regulation. The difference, it seems, is that we have a better system of propaganda for convincing ourselves that this is working when it is not. 40 years of drug prohibition, and no improvement. I volunteer a good deal of time working toward improving our drug laws. It's something I feel very strongly about. But in this case, what I'm most concerned with is the fact that we've allowed TSA to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of an attempt to keep dangerous items off of airplanes.
Even the TSA staff who perform the searches admit that they'll stop and take further action when they see, for instance, something that looks like it might be drugs that are illegal for some people to possess in some places, while they're searching our belongings. TSA proudly announces the fact that it finds evidence of identity theft, credit card fraud, passport fraud, immigrations violations, and possession of controlled substances, when "searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries".
Those are all worthy endeavors (with the exception of drugs, which would be better off legal and regulated, as we learned with the end of alcohol prohibition). We could surely find even more evidence of such wrongdoing if we allowed our government agents to stop everyone who passes other places -- highway entrance ramps, for instance -- and search them for evidence of wrongdoing. However, our courts have ruled that such fishing expeditions are unconstitutional. In this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people. TSA staff don't seem to get this. They seem to think that living in a police state is desirable.
Last edited by pmocek; Jan 5, 2010 at 10:18 am
Jan 5, 2010, 10:40 am
#217
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A Capital City on The East Coast
Programs: CO-Dirt,SPG-Nothing,Marriott-Gold, Hilton-Blue, Hyatt-Plat, HI-Plat
Posts: 6,872
... Searching everyone who passes to look for any indication of wrongdoing is unamerican and unconstitutional, no matter how much crime it would allow you to detect. Your job is not to detect crime; it's to keep dangerous items off airplanes....
... They seem to think that living in a police state is desirable
... They seem to think that living in a police state is desirable
And what you don't seem to understand is that even if you call it a search for potatoes, and you really think you're looking for potatoes, if you have a list of other things that you're supposed to watch out for, then you're really searching for those other things. There's just no way around it. You look in a bag, and you ignore everything except for certain things. That's a search for those things.
Jan 5, 2010, 11:14 am
#218
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Jan 5, 2010, 11:19 am
#219
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,165
Perhaps you need to review those court decisions.
Jan 5, 2010, 11:31 am
#220
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Ok. So, let me try and rephrase to see if I understand you correctly.
You have a list of items which, if you happen to discover them in the context of a legal administrative search for WEI, you are required to report to a supervisor. This list includes drugs and child pornography, but does not include possible violations of copyright law. Is this correct?
You have a list of items which, if you happen to discover them in the context of a legal administrative search for WEI, you are required to report to a supervisor. This list includes drugs and child pornography, but does not include possible violations of copyright law. Is this correct?
If so ... somewhere along the way, someone has made the determination that some potential violations of federal law are worth pursuing at a checkpoint, while others are not. Clearly it's not your decision to make. But the fact that you're not seeking any violation of any federal law in the context of your search creates an interesting question: how did the powers that be decide what to look for and what not to look for? That decision is what, in my completely uninformed and probably idiotic opinion, makes it look like TSA is searching for drugs and such.
(And I'm not sure I buy the "we can't determine the legality of a DVD in a bag search environment" argument. Unless you've got a chemical laboratory hanging out at the checkpoint, there's no way for a LEO to determine whether a large bag of white powder is, or isn't, a legal substance. Heck, if you find suspected child pornography, there's no way for a LEO on the spot to determine whether or not the individuals depicted were of legal age.)
Practical question. If I present a random bag to you as the X-ray operator, how hard is it for you find an arbitrary yet legal reason to call for a hand search? I'm thinking of the parallel situation in law enforcement where a patrol officer who suspects greater wrongdoing can pull over a driver for a relatively minor offense (broken taillight, rolling stop at a stop sign, etc.), and use that as a pretense to conduct the "real" search. In short: how easy would it be for a TSO to find a perfectly legal reason to call for a secondary search, if they suspected that there was a secondary item (e.g. drugs) that could be found?
Mine have not. We continue to refer large amounts of cash to the checkpoint supervisor. The directives for supervisors and managers may have changed, but not where I would notice.
Have your instructions changed in this regard?
Jan 5, 2010, 11:43 am
#221
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Kiddie porn is pretty obvious. Drugs less so, but in either case it’s a LEO’s call to make and not mine. If he/she feels that it is not then we put it back in the bag and off it goes to the bag room and the passenger never knows about any concerns.
The intent is for international flights, but that is where the supervisor gets to make the determination. If he/she feels inadequate to the task then a LEO is called and they get to make the decision. Traveling around the USA with huge wads of cash is not really an issue for me, I don’t really care. Its not illegal but may be of interest to other federal agencies for one reason or another.
Jan 5, 2010, 11:48 am
#222
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Recent court decisions have invalidated and made illegal any such requirement to call a supervisor, police or conduct or cause to be conducted any additional searching of any such item which is not germane to the scope of the search.
Perhaps you need to review those court decisions.
Perhaps you need to review those court decisions.
Jan 5, 2010, 11:58 am
#223
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Practical question. If I present a random bag to you as the X-ray operator, how hard is it for you find an arbitrary yet legal reason to call for a hand search? I'm thinking of the parallel situation in law enforcement where a patrol officer who suspects greater wrongdoing can pull over a driver for a relatively minor offense (broken taillight, rolling stop at a stop sign, etc.), and use that as a pretense to conduct the "real" search.
In short: how easy would it be for a TSO to find a perfectly legal reason to call for a secondary search, if they suspected that there was a secondary item (e.g. drugs) that could be found?
In short: how easy would it be for a TSO to find a perfectly legal reason to call for a secondary search, if they suspected that there was a secondary item (e.g. drugs) that could be found?
As an XRay operator I am usually not paying any attention to the passengers at all. My focus is on the screen in front of me. So, while I suppose I could use just about any pretense to direct a bag check, doing so for a particular individual would be difficult. It would have to be really slow on the checkpoint for me to actually connect a particular bag with a certain passenger.
Suppose you're on the X-ray and you see what appears to be a stash of drugs in a bag. As I understand your procedures, you're not allowed to call for a bag check just because you suspect there are drugs in the bag. How hard would it be for you to find another, defensible reason to call for a bag check on that bag? Something along the lines of "gee, that looks like a screwdriver that's under seven inches, but maybe we should pull the bag anyways to check how long it really is" ... and now you've created an excuse to find the drugs.
Basically, I'm wondering if an overzealous TSA could find a way to conduct primary searches for things outside of TSA's official scope, yet justify them on the basis of permitted actions.
Last edited by jkhuggins; Jan 5, 2010 at 11:59 am Reason: typesetting error
Jan 5, 2010, 12:04 pm
#224
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,165
Jan 5, 2010, 12:06 pm
#225
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
My take on it was not only that, be he could giving a flying rat's ... if the pax was flying domestically or internationally, simply because the SOP says so and a LEO might be "interested." Gotta love all those warrantless searches being performed for the LEOs.