TSA week at a Glance: From the inside point of view
 

Here's an interesting tidbit: http://info.publicintelligence.net/T...ctober2010.pdf :Suspicious Incident Report 15 Oct 2010

Apparently the TSA is still having document control issues. :rolleyes:

Anyway, of particular curiousity is the in-depth /TSA Week at a glance report 9/29/10 to 10/5/10 chart on page 13, detailing what TSA really sees as a threat to aviation.

Take a look at page 15, Suspicious Incident Report Selection Standards.

No wonder Phil got tagged. The threshold for suspicion in a TSO's mind appears to be a bit low


For more insights, type in TSA in the search box at this link: http://publicintelligence.net/

One can now recognize all 20 official layers to TSA security (http://info.publicintelligence.net/TSA-Challenges.pdf , page 3)

... as well as what the TSA sees as the profile of a typical female suicide bomber ( http://info.publicintelligence.net/T...ideBombers.pdf , page 10), what an explosive brassiere looks like and why your grandmother is now groped at a checkpoint (page 14), who the TSA thinks tomorrow's terrorist will be (page 90).

... that dark skinned males with video cameras are a threat to our highway infrastructure (http://info.publicintelligence.net/T...waysthreat.pdf , page 4)

and more...

I formally request a sticky.

Very interesting. I recommend saving these documents before they disappear from our access (can´t do it myself right now), even though they are marked unclassified.

Leafing through very quickly, I am struck by how primary these presentations are. They look like high school work or a simplified popular journalistic take. Nothing near real research presentations.

Think of the target audience. I am not surprised.

How many times have you heard on this board "Trust me, I know more than you but I can't say anything."

On the 1st page of the "Challenges document" the presentation date is 6/11/2010. Quote slide 6 "Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) – TSA plans to use systems in the primary position, eventually replacing metal detectors"

Anyone know how consistent (documented) this is with previous statements made? Possible lies (miscommunications in the best light, liars in the worse), or or just changed their mind?

Guys and gals with access to private information storing devices, keep a copy of as many of these files as possible!

I'm sure many people will...

A bomb "near" a rail line turns out to be debris dumped in an empty lot to avoid paying a disposal fee, a "test of security" turns out to be investigative journalists with a camera in a water bottle, and of course the never-ending stream of drug mules are trotted out.

None of this is a threat to transportation, but that doesn't curtail the seige mentality. If it's not an American flag, it's probably a bomb. :rolleyes:

The first report that the OP linked is a pretty standard counterintelligence report that agency CI staffs periodically publish for external audiences and for Congress. Most all of the morivation is to make sure that external audiences know that they are on the job doing good things. All entries are pulled from individual field or HQ offices' weekly activity reports. The commentary is usually new stuff, but, as you can see, is quite dated, perfunctory, and trieds to justify the actions of the employees. However, it does perform a decent job keeping the fear level up sufficiently enough to make sure the money keeps flowing their way.

If you drill down on this site, especially pulling up the "Transportation Security Administration" link on the right-hand listing, you can uncover all sorts of gems. One technology briefing proclaims how many of the ETD devices also simultaneously test for narcotics.

I'd like to drill down into the reports behind the map incidents pages, especially the "suspicious activity" reports.

:snort:

Best joke I've heard all week.

Page 13 of the pdf linked in the OP shows a "concealed money" "incident" at SFO.

So much for TSA's assurances in settling the ACLU/Bierfeldt case that they would quit looking for money.

For the benefit of TSA/TSOs, repeat after me: "Concealing cash is not a crime. Carrying cash in any amount, even internationally, is not a crime, though international carrying may have to be declared. TSA is not the agency responsible for receiving or handling currency declarations."

:rolleyes:

The female suicide bomber presentation (http://info.publicintelligence.net/T...ideBombers.pdf) struck me as nothing more as sensationalist.

It's as if the TSA said, "Hmmm. We have a room full of undereducated peons that we need to 'train' to do our bidding as quickly as possible. Let's show them a PowerPoint of biographies of women in hijabs carrying guns and striking military poses, coupled with a bunch of extremely graphic pictures of said womens' dismembered heads and bodies. If we can't take the time and expense to train these people effectively, then by God, let's at least scare them into doing our dirty work! (P.S. Female terrorists are likely to be single and attractive, so feel free to creep on the foreign hotties.)"

Yet if this report is current, it would explain the recent attention to female clothing and bodies. Either there's a credible threat, or someone wrote a white-paper and someone else ran with it.

Funny, I generally conceal my cash at all times.

Must make me suspicious in the eyes of TSA!:eek:

It would be consistent with the recent attention to females, but it does not explain or prove anything - correlation does not imply causation.

I still think it's more likely that skeevy TSA workers get their jollies or fill their quotas by targeting more complacent females.