I have seen Bob jump in on TSOs, and I have corrected one before, but I am merely a cog in the wheel. I think one problem is that the agency does not devote a great deal of resources to the TSA blog - please do not quote me on that, as I am not in HQ, I do not have printouts on manhours and such, so I can't comment intelligently on that, it is just the way it feels at this point. For the situation he is in, Bob does a fairly good job of keeping most of the balls he has to juggle in the air. Many .gov blogs have a dedicated staff of 4-5 persons - TSA, not so much. Interesting you should mention the "alleged TSOs", they show up all the time and some of them are certainly not TSOs. No member of an organization like this should expect unconditional support - you have to be in the right before support can be given by the agency, and if you are in the wrong, then there should be steps taken to correct that. I will send Bob a note indicating that correcting more "TSOs" and TSOs would be mroe forthcoming to the public. Another problem that the blog team runs into is they are given SOP or how it is interpreted at HQ (i.e. the spirit of the SOP), and sometimes by the time that SOP reaches the user end, the interpretation is different. This is the same with any large organization in many cases. I feel we should be doing a better job of getting the same interpretation of the SOP at all end users, so when Bob posts a thread about something going on, the TSO you meet in LAX, or DCA or even here should be at the least pretty close to each other. Communication is one of our biggest challenges as an agency (of course, that seems to be the biggest challenge for ANY agency).

I was not blaming the public for anything, I was merely pointing out that it is difficult to read through 300 posts where maybe 10-15 of them have constructive information you could actually use or forward up the chain for consideration, and the others are simply something along the lines of "Nazi this, fascist that, I hate you, fondle this, grope that, hope you all die, no one has ever used children for anything evil, no one has ever used the elderly for anything evil, sexual abuse, sexual assault, pervert, porno purveyors" et cetera. When you dig through the comments, and a majority of them are non-constructive, it makes missing the constructive ones easy. I think that the Idea Factory has challenges (come on, what program DOESN'T?), but some good changes and programs have come from it despite those challenges.

Despite your commentary to the contrary, I do not consider the folks that post things of a different opinion to be enemies. We are all in the same boat here, we just have different points of view on certain subjects. I disagree with your analogy above, it is a challenge to post here as a TSO because of the level of vitriol from some of the regulars. It is a joy to post here when one of the regulars makes a point for me (which happens from time to time). I come here to try and have constructive dialogue, sometimes I am happy because I get it, sometimes not so much. The only way for me to foster positive change is to learn as much as I can and forward it to those that may get it to someone that can make those changes. That is why I come here, and I hope that TB will do the same, as an LEO they have a completely different viewpoint, and it is nice to see them post it here (regardles of the sometimes crappy responses they get).

gsoltso, thank you for your posts here & the same for TB. I hope you change your mind & return..

No doubt I'll get slammed by some one for this post.

I did not comment because it was in ANOTHER thread. I said that it was poorly handled because I have no audio, and only her statements as to everything that went on. How do you know that she was not treated this way because she was making threats? How do you know that she was not under some further scrutiny because of an alarm? How do you know that she was not under scrutiny because the LEO had something that she fit the description for? When you see this video, you have only her story to go with it, and not enough information to make an INFORMED commentary on the video. So, to keep from saying "oh what a terrible situation she should never have to suffer through this" and then find out later that she was on an FBI list or had an alarm on half the items in her stuff and her person so the staff had to be more thorough in clearing her items to make certain that what she said was there is actually what was there - I simply say it was handled poorly because there are several things that could have been done differently, and leave it at that.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Turncoat! Benedict! LOL. I appreciate the comments Coach!^

Google the IGYB program (I got your back).

Well I'm one that just calls things on here the way I see them based on current & past positions & experiences.

I'd like to clarify what I meant about Bob correcting erroneous comments by TSOs or 'alleged' TSOs.

From my perspective (pax), I go to an agency blog. I see things posted by folks who allege (screen name or explicit comments) that they work for the agency. The comments are unchallenged by the moderator of the blog. I take this to mean that these comments do actually represent the agency and its policies.

Anyone who posts on the blog as a TSO (or alleged TSO) is doing so as a spokesman for the agency.

I would feel the same about any organizational blog. Certainly at my company, we are prohibited from posting to any IBB in any way that might be construed to mean our comments represent the company. I can not have a screen name 'CompanyXgirl' or post "I work for CompanyX and think...". Even if I make it clear that my comments represent my personal opinion, don't represent my company, etc, that is not good enough. My company still feels that the public perception will be that I am a spokesman for my company in some way.

I am new here, but color me incredulous that there is a 5 page thread for a member announcing that they are going to leave the forum. Seems a little extra dramatic. Is it to drum up a lot of "please don't leave us" posts?

Why not just stop posting?

It's to point out (and in this I agree) that it does nothing to help informed debate if those who disagree just shout insults and personal attacks at each other for voicing their opinion.

By doing so you help contribute to the "bubble" so to speak, you make it very easy for those who disagree to marginalize or discredit you in their own mind, even if you (or those that agree with you) have well reasoned arguments.

I didn't mean you specifically by the way, but you in the plural everyone sense of the word.

bolded by me:

Understood. Got it!

What's amazing to me is the large prevailing attitude on TS&S of you are either with us or against us. This is the same attitude that got us to this problem in the first place back shortly after 9/11 occured.

I'm not saying to stop anything but to make posts about people being brainwashed (3rd reply after the OPs post) shows the prevailing attitude on this specific forum...

Well, your Administrator Pistole; tearing himself away from his wet dream of giving TS"O"'s weapons and LEO powers, said different.
With the change, �we save limited resources in terms of who we are physically screening,� Pistole said in the interview. The approach will �allow us to pay more attention to those potential terrorists.�
You might not think all pax are potential terrorists, but the person who is supposed to set the tone and direction for your organization, apparently does. I'm not surprised that the irony of you accusing us here on FT of using broad ugly brushes, while your administrator with all that power and responsibility, does the same only larger and uglier, is irony completely lost on you.

Interesting thought. I have long believed that this discussion is not black or white, and I think that FT actually is less black and white in stance than some other fora.

I posted earlier in this thread how I arrived here not being anti-TSA, nor anti-TSO, and still don't agree with hyperbole or name-calling to support an argument.

Yet even then I don't feel that most of the 'anti-TSA' posters value my input any less. I cannot say the same for some of the TSOs who post here, however. (And again, I did value the TSOs who posted here in past in a helpful manner and who have mostly disappeared)

Returning to the general topic of this thread, earlier I pointed out that TSA doesn't do itself a favour sometimes by allowing TSOs to openly post online. Two threads started this week by TSOs support my belief, as do comments from several of the new posters who appeared this week on those threads.

You may not have been INFORMED, but you could tell (as a reasonable person) that this was at the very least "poorly handled" based upon the seemingly outrageous and inhumane treatment of that woman. But maybe I should be happy you admitted that.

Point being that you could've said "oh what a terrible situation...", but instead reserved judgment (and didn't even make a comment on that thread) when it was obvious (even to Eyecue) that something was terribly wrong.

My comments thus far are intended to make the point that the inability to be human, caring or understanding by giving a weak "poorly handled" response in reaction to an obvious situation that other reasonable people react to (even Eyecue) makes anything you say disingenuous and unbelievable. You're too busy defending your organization than being able to actually recognize and admit to possible or even real abuses.

Following this inability where TSA is concerned is the entire problem with the disconnect between the flying public, FT and TSA, and is why TB is having such a hard time. Try putting on the shoes that passengers have to take off. (Obviously that's gross, but I thought it was good. Sue me)

Anyway, I don't think all TSOs are terrible, and hate to see unjustified insults and name calling since we are all humans trying to get by in this world, but I DO see a disconnect in how the flying public's rights are viewed and the blind dedication to their organization by the TSOs, and there needs to be more humanity in those views.

^^ Well said.

Another excellent post. ^^

GSO, unlike a few other TSO's that post here, you aren't a knee jerk TSA defender, and I always enjoy reading your posts, even when I disagree with them, because you aren't arrogant, and you don't put yourself up on a pedestal - unlike another well-known poster.

FT needs more of you and less of the OP.

That said, your agency does treat passengers as potential terrorists, which is why your agency is fast becoming the federal agency Americans most like to hate. For reasons known only to your management - not the cream of the crop, BTW - TSA persists in maintaining an elaborate security theater production which makes the assumption that the biggest threat to aviation security is the passenger. People inside and outside the government who have studied threats to aviation have long concluded that under the wing security is the biggest threat we face, yet your management consistently hides this reality. Instead, we are forced to choose between being groped or strip searched - when neither method is close to 100% effective.

Once TSA and DHS stops lying to the flying public, things can improve. Until then, you and your colleagues will unfortunately be the ones to suffer.

+infinity Exbayern

I started learning about TSA on November 16 when I was getting ready to take a flight that I eventually chose to opt out of (didn't fly). I don't fly a whole lot, and I never gave a second thought about TSA or TSOs. I didn't dread going having to deal with them at any point. This non dread ceased upon having to determine whether I wanted a virtual strip search or my privates felt for the simple action of getting on a plane.

Then I started doing my research, and it hasn't been pretty for TSA or TSOs, and seeing the responses by TSOs on FT just makes it look worse. I'm seeing a "blindness" in how they see the public, and it's very disturbing and frustrating. Because of this blindness, their responses hold no sway for me, and I will continue to disregard them since I can't trust that they are being genuine in their responses, but only covering up for their organization, which is scary that you'd rather be a part of the Organization instead of a part of Humanity.