How much money are you carrying? TSA required answer at Cleveland Hopkins Airport
Mar 26, 2011, 1:27 pm
#61
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
OT wrt cash, but ...
I am still confused on whether TSA can roam through the Visa pages of your passport.
I know there is another thread on this, but I don't think there was consensus.
When TSA started flipping through mine, I asked what was she looking for.
She glared and told me she had the right to do this.
(to flip through the pp, not to glare
)
As posters in this thread seem knowledgeable, is there anything
I can print out that verifies TSA does NOT have the right to do this?
I did not press the issue verbally, but would have if I had some printout
of rules/regs. etc. to contradict them with.
I am still confused on whether TSA can roam through the Visa pages of your passport.
I know there is another thread on this, but I don't think there was consensus.
When TSA started flipping through mine, I asked what was she looking for.
She glared and told me she had the right to do this.
(to flip through the pp, not to glare
)As posters in this thread seem knowledgeable, is there anything
I can print out that verifies TSA does NOT have the right to do this?
I did not press the issue verbally, but would have if I had some printout
of rules/regs. etc. to contradict them with.
I hope that helps.
Mar 26, 2011, 1:28 pm
#62
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 438
An interesting question.^^ Human nature maybe, after all asking questions is a very human thing to do and we are all offended when someone refuses to answer (anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, or just plain lying). That is enhanced when one is doing a job that requires that questions be asked, and suspicion is a very natural reaction when someone refuses to answer or to cooperate.
that someone has not answered an intrusive, personal question that we are not legally required to answer, is NOT a valid reason to cause suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant contacting LEO to commence an investigation into that person!The fact that someone did not answer an intrusive personal question that is not legally required to be answered is NOT suspicious behavior. It is nothing more than a desire to maintain our privacy, and withhold personal information from people who have no right to know it.
This is really a classic TSORon post. It sheds even more light on his basic belief that we are all criminals, demonstrating yet again that he has zero comprehension of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that is an important hallmark of our American society, government, and legal system.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 26, 2011 at 3:58 pm Reason: inflammatory remarks
Mar 26, 2011, 1:31 pm
#63
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
The only questions a TSA clerk has to ask is to clarify when the passenger does not provide the information themselves. For instance, if a pax is standing in front of the TDC and doesn't hand over their docs, the clerk would then ask, "may I have your ID and boarding pass please."
This isn't rocket science.
Cali
This isn't rocket science.
Cali
Mar 26, 2011, 1:34 pm
#64
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 438
Can you show us something with states that the TSA is tasked with criminal investigations of monetary crimes, or is responsible for watching out for "potential" financial crimes that might occur in the future?
Mar 26, 2011, 1:51 pm
#65
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: PDX/AUS
Programs: AA-UA-AS IHG-SPG-Carlson
Posts: 4,562
I am asking about written guidelines, one way or the other.
Maybe it is just not addressed in writing anywhere.
To save time, I try to remember to just use DL.
Last edited by MrHalliday; Mar 26, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Mar 26, 2011, 1:59 pm
#66
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The US
Posts: 40
I neither make the laws nor do I enforce them. As a good citizen it is my responsibility to notify the authorities when I suspect that someone is violating the law, and as a TSO I am required to do so. That is not enforcing the law, it is only making notification to someone who does.
I really tried not to step in and reply to your comments but just as I don't like to watch Fox News, in order to have a well-rounded view of the issue I believe it is good to see different sides and learn from them. You are teaching me quite a bit btw.
The OP also stated that he/she advised the TSO that they were traveling overseas. Hence the reason for the additional questions. Don’t want to answer those kinds of questions? Then don’t!
I didn't have the choice if I was going to catch my plan
Which is something that ICE can verify. Which is why ICE would be called.
But ICE did not talk with ME. They talked with the TSA supervisor who was the one causing all of the problems.
That’s because you choose not to see the indication. It’s quite clear, unless one does not want to see it.
You are only perpetuating an environment of fear which is not what travel is supposed to be about albeit the root word of travel is actually to travail and I can verify from personal accounts this is what is turning into physically and mentally.
Yes. (for further information you will need to do some studying on explosive compounds)
The problem is deciding on which time this is. The OP made several inaccurate or misleading statements that needed to be cleared up. I made the choice to do so. Some here just can’t bring themselves to believe the facts, and some prefer to ignore them. I do neither.
Facts are objective not subjective.
Toward what point? If indeed you are as you say "an idiot" then the information would be beyond your ability to comprehend, and if not then by making the comment you have you have shown that you honestly have no interest in the facts. Why waste both of our time?
And I for one appreciate that. It’s rare here, and I thank you for it.
Assuming that your opinion is correct it sounds like you would be the perfect candidate.
They may have, we have only half the story here. Only the part that the OP wishes to tell us.
Pardon? You can look up case number xxxx (sorry I had it there at first but then edited it as per your posts I am not quite comfortable with it being given to you thus I made the choice to remove it) with the TSA. They already have all of my other information and I am being very transparent about all of this. Do you really think I would be going to the mayor, my congressman, the tsa, the Port Control of Hopkins Airport, etc. if I didn't stick with the facts? As a trained PhD. I have learned to stick with the facts and while emotions do play a part in discourse such as this, I have learned to step away from the emotional side (although you have tested my resolve in this area : )
I wouldn’t know, I have never met one. Have you?
Suicide bombers typically have “handlers” who also have the ability to detonate the bomb remotely, just in case the individual gets cold feet. Its common practice in Israel.
And here is the funny part, no one else can either. So, when you can invent a way for us to be able to tell the difference between “ma and pa kettle” and a terrorist we can begin ignoring “ma and pa kettle” and concentrate on those who matter. How is the inventing going anyway?
So, you knew that it was going to detect your belt and you kept it on anyway. Hmmm, just where is the point of contention?
No I did not know it was going to detect my belt because I have never had that problem in the over 80 countries I have gone in and out of in my travel career.
We call it “procedure”. More than that I am not allowed to say, but I’m sure with a bit of effort you can figure it out.
Read it and understood it quite well. You volunteered the information of your other flights, which of course led to the additional questions. Again I ask “where is the point of contention”?
I did not volunteer anything. I was being stopped from boarding my flight.
Like I said earlier in this post to another individual, we only have your half of the story. It sounds like they did contact ICE, as required. ICE made a different choice than expected, not something that is under the control of the TSA.
They can ask whatever they like, the thing is that you are not required to answer.
so miranda rights? when are those supposed to be given or does that not pertain to TSA? maybe the public should be told our rights regarding questioning before the questioning begins and the demanding of papers.
Your area of expertise is travel, mine is security. I do not have a PhD, but one is not needed to know that the folks you dealt with at the checkpoint did their jobs. As for the claim of “unsupported rhetoric”, well yours is an opinion, mine is an informed opinion.
We are obviously of two worlds and unfortunately I have had to step into yours for awhile. I guess your right there, my "öpinion" is uninformed.
Depends on their direction of travel. TSO’s are not law enforcement officers, we have no authority to detain the individual no matter which direction he or she goes. What we can do is if necessary, is follow the individual and contact a LEO.
And the traveling public knows this how??
If you had said that to the TSO or STSO that would have ended the conversation and you would have been on your way. Sounds to me like you caused your own problem.
We both know better than that. Why the rhetoric?
Well, you have tried. Succeeding is a long way off yet.
Never been to PHX personally, so I wouldn’t know. How much you want to bet that the TSO’s at PHX know this?
Yes, and? We have had that discussion here before.
Hmmm, if you get on a direct flight to LHR from PHX how much you wanna bet that you will be leaving US airspace before touching the ground again? How difficult do you suppose it will be to find an ICE agent while on that flight, or a mail box from which to mail your form? Come one, connect the dots, its not that hard.
I really tried not to step in and reply to your comments but just as I don't like to watch Fox News, in order to have a well-rounded view of the issue I believe it is good to see different sides and learn from them. You are teaching me quite a bit btw.
The OP also stated that he/she advised the TSO that they were traveling overseas. Hence the reason for the additional questions. Don’t want to answer those kinds of questions? Then don’t!
I didn't have the choice if I was going to catch my plan
Which is something that ICE can verify. Which is why ICE would be called.
But ICE did not talk with ME. They talked with the TSA supervisor who was the one causing all of the problems.
That’s because you choose not to see the indication. It’s quite clear, unless one does not want to see it.
You are only perpetuating an environment of fear which is not what travel is supposed to be about albeit the root word of travel is actually to travail and I can verify from personal accounts this is what is turning into physically and mentally.
Yes. (for further information you will need to do some studying on explosive compounds)
The problem is deciding on which time this is. The OP made several inaccurate or misleading statements that needed to be cleared up. I made the choice to do so. Some here just can’t bring themselves to believe the facts, and some prefer to ignore them. I do neither.
Facts are objective not subjective.
Toward what point? If indeed you are as you say "an idiot" then the information would be beyond your ability to comprehend, and if not then by making the comment you have you have shown that you honestly have no interest in the facts. Why waste both of our time?
And I for one appreciate that. It’s rare here, and I thank you for it.
Assuming that your opinion is correct it sounds like you would be the perfect candidate.
They may have, we have only half the story here. Only the part that the OP wishes to tell us.
Pardon? You can look up case number xxxx (sorry I had it there at first but then edited it as per your posts I am not quite comfortable with it being given to you thus I made the choice to remove it) with the TSA. They already have all of my other information and I am being very transparent about all of this. Do you really think I would be going to the mayor, my congressman, the tsa, the Port Control of Hopkins Airport, etc. if I didn't stick with the facts? As a trained PhD. I have learned to stick with the facts and while emotions do play a part in discourse such as this, I have learned to step away from the emotional side (although you have tested my resolve in this area : )
I wouldn’t know, I have never met one. Have you?
Suicide bombers typically have “handlers” who also have the ability to detonate the bomb remotely, just in case the individual gets cold feet. Its common practice in Israel.
And here is the funny part, no one else can either. So, when you can invent a way for us to be able to tell the difference between “ma and pa kettle” and a terrorist we can begin ignoring “ma and pa kettle” and concentrate on those who matter. How is the inventing going anyway?
So, you knew that it was going to detect your belt and you kept it on anyway. Hmmm, just where is the point of contention?
No I did not know it was going to detect my belt because I have never had that problem in the over 80 countries I have gone in and out of in my travel career.
We call it “procedure”. More than that I am not allowed to say, but I’m sure with a bit of effort you can figure it out.
Read it and understood it quite well. You volunteered the information of your other flights, which of course led to the additional questions. Again I ask “where is the point of contention”?
I did not volunteer anything. I was being stopped from boarding my flight.
Like I said earlier in this post to another individual, we only have your half of the story. It sounds like they did contact ICE, as required. ICE made a different choice than expected, not something that is under the control of the TSA.
They can ask whatever they like, the thing is that you are not required to answer.
so miranda rights? when are those supposed to be given or does that not pertain to TSA? maybe the public should be told our rights regarding questioning before the questioning begins and the demanding of papers.
Your area of expertise is travel, mine is security. I do not have a PhD, but one is not needed to know that the folks you dealt with at the checkpoint did their jobs. As for the claim of “unsupported rhetoric”, well yours is an opinion, mine is an informed opinion.
We are obviously of two worlds and unfortunately I have had to step into yours for awhile. I guess your right there, my "öpinion" is uninformed.
Depends on their direction of travel. TSO’s are not law enforcement officers, we have no authority to detain the individual no matter which direction he or she goes. What we can do is if necessary, is follow the individual and contact a LEO.
And the traveling public knows this how??
If you had said that to the TSO or STSO that would have ended the conversation and you would have been on your way. Sounds to me like you caused your own problem.
We both know better than that. Why the rhetoric?
Well, you have tried. Succeeding is a long way off yet.
Never been to PHX personally, so I wouldn’t know. How much you want to bet that the TSO’s at PHX know this?
Yes, and? We have had that discussion here before.
Hmmm, if you get on a direct flight to LHR from PHX how much you wanna bet that you will be leaving US airspace before touching the ground again? How difficult do you suppose it will be to find an ICE agent while on that flight, or a mail box from which to mail your form? Come one, connect the dots, its not that hard.
Last edited by mkann69; Mar 26, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Mar 26, 2011, 2:00 pm
#67
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno
Posts: 195
Obviously you are not a TSO, and just as obviously you do not know what our job is. Yes, there is an EPIC FAIL here, and its just as obvious who has made it.
Obviously it’s not, which still does not explain why you got it so wrong so quickly. Well done though, you continue to make my points for me.
Obviously it’s not, which still does not explain why you got it so wrong so quickly. Well done though, you continue to make my points for me.
Name the questions you are required to ask. Let me guess, you'll say that you cannot because it is classified info.
Money is not a matter of security (that's what that "s" in TSA is supposed to stand for) and I will never tell any clerk how much money I am carrying. It's too bad the OP didn't ask for a law enforcement OFFICER at the first sign of thuggery.
Cali
Mar 26, 2011, 2:04 pm
#68
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
An interesting question.^^ Human nature maybe, after all asking questions is a very human thing to do and we are all offended when someone refuses to answer (anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, or just plain lying). That is enhanced when one is doing a job that requires that questions be asked, and suspicion is a very natural reaction when someone refuses to answer or to cooperate.
Mar 26, 2011, 2:05 pm
#69
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The US
Posts: 40
It does not get much clearer than that. These are written guidelines for the TSA.
Last edited by mkann69; Mar 26, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Mar 26, 2011, 2:14 pm
#70
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 438
Really..... That is a very subjective statement, and perhaps you are deluded in making it universal. Asking people who you don't know highly personal questions is usually considered rude, being offended by that reaction is well, irrational. But you were brought up to know and respect that, right?
1) It's NOT universal. If I asked someone an intrusive personal question, especially if it involved how much money they are carrying, I would NOT be "offended" if they chose not to respond. I would have the critical thinking skills that would allow me to recognize that they simply choose not to reveal such personal information to a stranger who has no right to know it.
2) You are correct that it is rude to ask intrusive personal questions that you do not have a legal right to ask. I don't care WHO you are - someone asking me how much money is in my purse, is going to be met with a) silence, and b) suspicion from ME that they have nefarious reasons for asking it. TSA has no right or need to know how much money you are carrying, and any questions about it are rude, intrusive, and unnecessary.
3) Being offended by such a reaction is definitely irrational. Anyone who can't understand that we don't want to reveal the amount of money we're carrying, to non-LEO strangers who have no right or need to know, is not thinking rationally.
Actually it is specifically stated in writing. Please google ACLU/Beirfeldt versus the TSA (2009) and read the injunction that came from the case. It clearly and definitively states that "safety screening procedures be strictly limited to passenger searches for the purpose of safeguarind flight safety. TSA must adhere to their limited mandate of protecting flights against weapons or explosives".
It does not get much clearer than that. These are written guidelines for the TSA.
It does not get much clearer than that. These are written guidelines for the TSA.
Mar 26, 2011, 2:16 pm
#71
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: PDX/AUS
Programs: AA-UA-AS IHG-SPG-Carlson
Posts: 4,562
Actually it is specifically stated in writing. Please google ACLU/Beirfeldt versus the TSA (2009) and read the injunction that came from the case. It clearly and definitively states that "safety screening procedures be strictly limited to passenger searches for the purpose of safeguarind flight safety.
I don't see any specific mention of HOW to inspect passports.
Amendment 2 does say the document checker is to determine if the document is fraudulent.
I expect the real procedures are in a current version
of that secret manual that leaked last year.
IIRC, it was reported that Visa stamps from some countries resulted in mandatory secondary.
Last edited by MrHalliday; Mar 26, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Mar 26, 2011, 2:20 pm
#72
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,638
Mar 26, 2011, 2:20 pm
#73
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The US
Posts: 40
Being "offended" that someone has not answered an intrusive, personal question that we are not legally required to answer, is NOT a valid reason to cause suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant contacting LEO to commence an investigation into that person!
The fact that someone did not answer an intrusive personal question that is not legally required to be answered is NOT suspicious behavior. It is nothing more than a desire to maintain our privacy, and withhold personal information from people who have no right to know it.
This is really a classic TSORon post. It sheds even more light on his basic belief that we are all criminals, demonstrating yet again that he has zero comprehension of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that is an important hallmark of our American society, government, and legal system.
that someone has not answered an intrusive, personal question that we are not legally required to answer, is NOT a valid reason to cause suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant contacting LEO to commence an investigation into that person!The fact that someone did not answer an intrusive personal question that is not legally required to be answered is NOT suspicious behavior. It is nothing more than a desire to maintain our privacy, and withhold personal information from people who have no right to know it.
This is really a classic TSORon post. It sheds even more light on his basic belief that we are all criminals, demonstrating yet again that he has zero comprehension of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that is an important hallmark of our American society, government, and legal system.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm Reason: reference to deleted comment
Mar 26, 2011, 2:22 pm
#74
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Everywhere
Programs: AAdvantage; Wyndham Rewards
Posts: 35
I was going to join in but it seems like this is being handled well by those with any bit of common sense. However, I wonder if anyone noticed the icing on the cake? TSORon's signature:
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."
TSORon, it seems that every time you make a post, it's contradicted by that little line at the bottom of it.
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."
TSORon, it seems that every time you make a post, it's contradicted by that little line at the bottom of it.
Mar 26, 2011, 2:29 pm
#75
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The US
Posts: 40
TSA must adhere to their limited mandate of protecting flights against weapons or explosives". It would be my understanding that going through your passport (which they did with mine) does not fall into this mandate but then again as I am seeing on this thread, interpretations differ. I see policies being written as ambiguous as possible so that there is room for interpretation from either side. I wish I had a more definitive answer for you as I would be interested in knowing myself.