Playing "Fun with TSA" -- anyone can do it
 

This actually happened a couple of months ago but I forgot to post about it. I was departing LIH (Lihue, HI) and before walking through the metal detector I was told I needed to remove my belt. I then told her "Then I'll need a private screening."

(Reasonably true... my girth means my pants don't stay on easily, combined with the fact that I've lost a little weight lately -- not nearly enough, but some -- means the likelihood of me inadvertantly "dropping my pants" in public was a real possibility.)

However, the TSA agent, who clearly heard what I said, just repeated in an exasperated, and louder, voice, "SIR, YOU MUST REMOVE YOUR BELT." I responded with "Yeah, I heard you the first time. But I'm still going to need a private screening."

Wow! She looked so livid I though her head might explode. She fumed for a few seconds, then curtly told me to "stand over there." I happily complied, trying desperately to supress my stupid grin.

I eventually got my private screening, and some leisure time while they x-rayed my belt (what the hell is that supposed to find?) But while still "waiting in line" a young woman was told to get in line behind me (for reasons I did not catch.) But instead of walking back through the metal detector she moved between the detector and some absurd little gate they had set up, and got in line behind me.

The TSA agent was livid (even more) and insisted she go back the way she came so she could exit via the metal detector. But the young woman just kept saying "but you told me to get in the line up." I don't think she understood what the TSA agent wanted. And she never did comply. In the meantime I think the TSA screeners blood pressure trippled, and probably took several years off her life.

It's the simple things in life...

imho, nothing at all but rather it is to prevent the wtmd from alarming due to the belt buckle. i never take my belt buckle off as it does not alarm and on the few occasions that i am asked to remove my belt, i tell the tso at the wtmd that it never alarms* and walk thru without issues**


*it is brass, about 3"x3" and i am convinced that brass does not alarm

**once i was given a retaliatory secondary ("male assist, full") for not removing my belt and politely raised the roof with a supervisor before i was "touched" saying that there was no argument they could submit to me that a full secondary on either me or my bags was required simply because my belt did not alarm as i went thru the wtmd. the supervisor agreed and let me pass.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...04lebx33x2.jpg

Things like this for example...

Sure - might happen!
 

Superman with the pee-wee knife you show could maybe slice a fellow passenger, but would probably be KILLED by the other passengers.
A knife like this is NO THREAT to aviation, what with blast-proof cockpit doors.

The level of threat involved doesn't change the fact that they are prohibited. Plus something like this is artful concealment which brings a new element into the mix.

Did you not read the the persons post you quoted? knives are a non-threat (plus there catered on every flight), is it that hard to get through your head? Your average person does not know how to wield a knife for it to due much other then a small cut. Then TSAs policy makes absolutely no sense (like a lot of the restrictions TSA promotes that have no basis in reality) in that I carry a fiskar scissors in my backpack that where laser sharpened (IE sharper then a scalpel) arent seen as a threat but yet my benchmade folder that the blade is shorter then the scissors is. Those scissors arent one but two daggers and all i need is a coin to remove the screw.

Then there's the fact that every person who has stepped out of line has been stopped by passengers on the flight (no fam involvement) and in some cases died due to being suffocated.

The fact that they are prohibited doesn't change the threat level.

What is "brought into the mix" by artful concealment?

Artful concealment gets a LEO involved.

Is artful concealment unlawful?

Wow, this sounds like an authoritative assertion. :rolleyes:

A few of us regular travelers appreciate the fact that they continue to screen. What is it, like 20 seconds extra out of your life?

Of course a post titled like this one leads me to understand the mood of a few that post here.... :)

I think I know who you are talking about at LIH. Real nasty Smurf (Does not deserve the respect of being called a TSO) with a short temper and power trips to make up for some shortcoming in life.

I don't subscribe to the "safety at any cost" school of thought - my perspective on it is somewhat different - but yes, you will find that many that post here genuinely believe that weapons of any sort are no threat to aviation at all and should be freely allowed through security checkpoints and on board. As long as it's not explosive, it goes through.

That viewpoint makes it particularly difficult (think head-banging-against-wall) to try to "educate" them on a different way of doing things since they are starting from such a warped position.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who (a) possess a modicum of common sense, and (b) travel regularly so are a stakeholder in the argument as opposed to an armchair expert, would strongly argue against weapons being allowed on aircraft.

Certainly makes me wonder if there is a big overlap between these people that you frequently see in this forum and those that actively campaign for wider gun rights in shopping malls, around schools, etc. Certainly there is a lot they have in common :rolleyes:

Gotta love the argument that if you don't agree with me you have a warped position, don't possess common sense and must be an armchair expert.

:rolleyes:

This summarizes things well, I think. I have no problem with people traveling with firearms, but per the regulations, in checked baggage. Further, if the powers that be wish to declare certain items are not allowed in the cabin, so be it. But there are other mechanisms for dealing with these things than to have them end up on eBay.

For example, the pen-knife most of us used to carry all over. These can certainly be carried safely in the cargo hold. So, instead of "surrender under duress," the TSA could easily hand the pax an envelope and say put it in here, give them a claim check and put it in a bin for a gate agent to pick up just before boarding and put it in the cargo hold. Just like we do for camping permits at state parks. Money in envelope. Receipt torn off and kept, envelope in pipe. Minor logistics problems exist and stuff will certainly be lost from time to time, but better than what we have now, and at the destination, just pick the stuff up at the luggage claim.

On another note, the TSA gave up confiscating cigarette lighters, not because they were inherently safe, but because they didn't want to spend the money disposing of all the butane. And butane burns. At least this is what is implied from a TSO's comments.

Now imagine a terrorist who knows they are unlikely to get bad stuff on an airplane. Six buy tickets on flight x, arrive at security with six 1.5 liter. sealed coke bottles, separately, still ice cold. TSA confiscates and trashes, along with the rest of the liquid POWs. Six more come by for another flight, an hour later. Six more cokes with 1 liter each, in the same garbage can. No screening of these, they are thrown away as they are in plain view and the obedient pax immediately give them to the agent to dispose, per the rules. Now, there's 15 liters of incendiary/explosives in the trash can, one with the artfully concealed detonator. The terrorists are en route when the explosion takes out the terminal.

Better we let people take a demonstration drink of their cokes at the checkpoint and take them on the airplane where at least they'll be dispersed and unlikely to cause serious damage.

There are tons of items that can be concealed with a belt, like the knife above, detonators, wiring, even a sheet of explosive, just about anything you can think of to cause damage to an airplane or the people on it, can be concealed within or attached to a belt. :D

To the OP, there should have been no attitude with you over the waiting to remove a belt. Many passengers have a similar situation to you (meaning for some reason their pants will not stay up all the time without a little assistance of some sort!), all it takes is a bit of patience and just plain courtesy. I have even screened individuals that held their pants with one hadn while I screened the opposite side, and vice versa. It is not an uncommon occurence, and should not have resulted in an attitude. Sorry you had a bad experience.

Narrow minds abound, touting claims that arent even definitions in laws.

When you hold a hammer, along with a propensity to power trip every thing looks like a nail.

So you're saying that we must X-ray everything in which people can hide such items?

Almost anything that can be concealed with a belt (or in the sole of a shoe) can be concealed in armpits, crotches, pockets, mouths, and rectums (just last month, a man who was headed for prison smuggled a cigarette lighter, rolling papers, a bag of tobacco the size of a golf ball, a smaller bag of marijuana, a 1-inch smoking pipe, a bottle of tattoo ink and eight tattoo needles in his rectum).

Your policies won't stop a determined criminal. Why do you continue to impose them on the rest of us? You're not stopping people from causing harm on airplanes; people simply aren't trying to do so.

but to be fair, are the knives in the picture you linked metal or plastic? can't tell from the image alone. if metal, then it's not a valid argument as the wtmd should be picking it up

bolding mine: careful......the x-ray machines do not detect explosives on their own. if a sheet of explosives, it would have to be of a different density than the belt so it would show the contrasting image of the sheet against the belt :)

You may know all there is to know from a medical/EMT perspective, but you have no background in LE judging from your posts. Most folks may not be knife fighting experts; they usually wield the knife blade up, limit their strikes primarily to the torso in an effort to go for the deep penetration wound. Those that have knife fighting skills generally attempt for multiple small laceration wounds on the arms, legs, and torso until their opponent is exhausted, enters shock, or bleeds out from a well placed laceration. Furthermore, knives ARE INDEED A THREAT; not to cockpit security or hull integrity, but to the passengers. Oh, I know...everyone's a Rambo...puhleeze.

Agreed. The policies in this regard make no sense whatsoever.

That's not accurate concerning FAM involvement. Additionally, in every single incident reference passengers subduing folks "stepping out of line" the suspect WAS NOT ARMED. How many of your super vigilant pax are going to step up to the plate against a suspect armed with a knife or a firearm?

TB

agreed, agreed and i will. i have done if before back when i was a bouncer in a bar where a "patron" decided to pull a knife when i told him he couldn't leave with his opened bottle. first thing i did was step back beyond arm's reach and then grabbed the first thing i saw to defend myself (which happened to be a tray on the counter). he lunged as you described above and it was an easy deflection of the knife and then he promptly "fell down" (ok, he was body blocked into the wall and fell) and was restrained by me and others until the police arrived. if on a plane, someone might not like me taking their laptop but that will work just as well. foolish yes, but i'd do it again on a knife (but on a firearm, nope as that why you get paid the big bucks ;))

You are correct, there is a more dense selection of populace that have narrow minds on this site.:rolleyes:

True about the belt buckle, however there is a large selection of ceramic and carbon fiber blades available in the same format that will not alarm. Even a sharp plastic (the reinforced plastic mind you) can be used almost the same as a regular steel knife.

You are correct on the density variation. I never claim that anything is 100%, however, if a belt is very dense, almost every xray operator I have worked with will at least look at the belt, if not have someone else check it.

The problem with not searching for items like these is the fact that we are supposed to protect all the passengers (essentially that is the whole mission statement distilled). When we allow these on, or stop searching for them it places passengers at risk. Again, nothing will ever be 100%, it is simply about doing the best job that you can with the rules and equipment you have.

I agree as well. Knife fighting is a dirty way to go about it, and even someone with no idea what they are doing can get lucky. Most people faced with a knife in an enclosed space would not even consider taking on the person - however, there is a much larger selection of people that would rush them now than before. Even with the training from my past (quickly becoming ancient past it seems), I would be hard pressed to do much more than tie most guys up until someone else could help (clarification - I am 6'2" and about 300 lbs - movement in an airplane is dodgy at best, in a flying airplane it becomes a matter of mass crammed into a small space, all while trying to counter the airplanes movements).:D

Might I also suggest that the pilots could do plenty to disrupt a passenger with a knife.

i agree completely-i was just being my pita self ;) to make sure that both sides of the picture posted by TSO1973 are in play ;). now if i may, a question about belts and their removal.....are pax required to remove their belts? the reason i ask is that since i'm the orthopedic shoe terrorist ;), i am reminded about my belt when i am about go thru the wtmd where i respond that it never alarms and that's it-the only time i have any "issues" is when the wtmd gatekeeper tso does not know the definition of orthopedic shoes :rolleyes: and i win a retaliatory (where i proceed to ruin the tso's day [and contrary to popular belief, i cut tso's a lot of slack, and i mean a lot of slack, as long as they play by the rules] but i digress). so with all of that, if pax are not required to remove their belts and the belt does not alarm, there is, imho and afaic, a very very big security hole just waiting to be exploited (if it hasn't already been)


bolding mine: the problem is that most people would rush the person with the knife straight on and would probably end up causing more harm to themselves ;)

Direct quote from a LEO, "We get involved in artful concealment situations because it shows intent to get an item past the checkpoint into the sterile area. Whether we pursue charges or citations is on a case by case basis after interviewing the passenger".

Is artful concealment unlawful?
 

You didn't answer my question. Is artful concealment unlawful?

Well since I am not a LEO or a lawyer, that's not for me to answer. I gave you the answer I was given.

Oh, okay. New question: Do you think artful concealment is unlawful?

If you were given an answer, you must have asked a question. What question did you ask? "We get involved... because..." is not an answer to the question, "Is ____ unlawful?"

Police don't magically get involved. If they get involved in cases of artful concealment, it's almost certainly because you requested their involvement. Do you request involvement of police when you discover something you believe has been artfully concealed? If so, why do you do so?

We request the involvement of LE when an item is believed to be artfully concealed because that is what is written in the SOP.

As far as the legality of artfully concealed items, I don't know the answer to that. My best guess is yes, it is illegal.

According to 49 CFR § 1540.105 (a)No person may; (1)Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.

Artful concealment would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the security process. You believe that an item in your possession is not allowed(item does not need to be prohibited) and you attempt to hide it, in order to prevent the discovery of said item.

ORDofcr, do you believe that an attempt to take a prohibited item past the TSA barricade without artfully concealing it is any less of an attempt to circumvent such measures than doing so with artful concealment is? What if someone "attempted to hide" the item by concealing it in his suitcase -- would you see that as an attempt to "circumvent the security process"?

No, average people are smart enough to understand that their suitcase is going to go through the x-ray machine and that we can see the contents of the suitcase displayed on our screens. For instance:Woman stopped at TDC and asked if it was ok for her to bring her stun gun through the CP. TDC told her no, but she could go check it in. Woman left TDC and returned 5 minuted later "without" stun gun. Placed her bag into the x-ray and (wow! what a surprise) she put the stun gun in her purse. Artful concealment, no. Stupid, yes.
Another example: Guy has a part of a screw driver(non-prohibited) and puts it in his shoe below the sole of the shoe in order to "prevent" us from seeing this because he thought it was prohibited. Artful concealment, yes.
We get a lot of people who "wrap" things like pocket knives and liquids in aluminum foil, because they think that it will block the x-rays from seeing what is in their bags. Could we follow up for artful concealment, probably. Do we usually, no. STSO's don't want to do the paperwork.
What makes me laugh every time, is when I get sent to the international terminal and constantly have to wand, well, one certain group of people, who wrap their money in aluminum foil and keep it on their person as they walk through the metal detector. I mean, come on... Really??
Also, items such as cane swords, umbrella swords, and other items made to look non-prohibited but containing prohibited items, MAY be seen as artfully concealed.

In the TSA Civil Sanctions guide, artful concealment is an aggravating factor.(I believe. That's just from memory, but I know that A.C. is in there somewhere.)

CFR is regulatory... it's not criminal law. Try again.

I never said it was criminal law. Regulatory = Administrative law. Excerpt from Wikipedia on "Code of Federal Regulations":Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...

Yeah, we all know that Wikipedia is the authority on everything.

Then you must also realize that decisions related to administrative rule violations are not subject to arrest of a "suspect" for violations. Adjudication of administrative laws are done by a kangaroo court within the same agency that alleges the violation. That is a distinct conflict of interest and an outright violation of the principal of separation of powers. It is a very expensive, and very lengthy process to even try to get administrative rules challenged in court. And even lengthier to try and appeal an adverse agency/kangaroo court decision into the regular court system.

this is no secret. And it is a key reason that agencies LOVE administrative law. It allows them to make arbitrary rules, operate as the "police", and adjudicate the "violations" with very little oversight. And your agency and it's parent - DHS & TSA - are especially in love with administrative law because they can hide behind the secrecy of "it's for security".

Okay, now we're back to questioning why the police would be called in the event that TSA bag checkers see something concealed and believe that it was concealed in an artful manner. Is such a discovery grounds for arrest and prosecution? Do TSA simply call the police to intimidate passengers?

Now why would they need to do that? Aren't their blue shirts and little junior detective tin badges enough to strike fear into the hearts of the flying public? :D :D :D

"artfully concealed" is a cute term that goes back to the FAA security days. It certainly lends weight to civil penalty actions, making it harder for the person to say "I forgot it was there."

But, "artfully concealed" isn't a criminal law term. The fact that an item merely restricted from being carried aboard an aircraft is "artfully concealed" doesn't make it a criminal matter. On the other hand, if the item is not merely restricted, but criminally prohibited, then "artfully concealed" takes its place in the narrative of the police report, serving the same anti-alibi purpose as it does for civil penalties.

Whoa! This statement really raises my hackles. When you go from protecting the flight to protecting individual passengers you open a whole new can of worms. I'm not sure I want the TSA anywhere near commercial aviation to begin with and now you are (in your mind) massively expanding your scope.

My god man. I could garrote a cute FA with the laces from my hiking boots while a co-conspirator demands access to the cockpit*.

Any blade allowed pre-9/11 isn't a threat to a flight.

*Well, I couldn't since I weigh less then most of the cute flight attendants, but my cousin Vinny-Abdul certainly could, so there. :p

TSO1973?

In my prior life, I adjudicated all civil penalties assessed by my former agency. My power was amazing. I could uphold the penalty, I could reduce it - all without fear of being called to explain why I did what I did.