![]() |
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 19404532)
Translation: our expensive machines are useless.
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 19406040)
Directive issued 9.1.2007. Were you not paying attention?
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19408092)
Only to those who know nothing about the subject, or those who refuse to acknowledge the difficulty in interpreting the information presented.
Is it a Management or an Operations directive? Never mind, I checked both, the directive you propose does not exist under that name (which is why I asked for a link). Signed by Gale Rossides 9.1.2009 Sorry - wrong date in initial post. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 19408260)
TSA management directive no. 100.4
Signed by Gale Rossides 9.1.2009 Sorry - wrong date in initial post. http://www.governmentattic.org/4docs...tives_2009.pdf |
Originally Posted by Houston.Business
(Post 19413185)
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19404176)
Care to provide a link to this "directive"?
OP - The 'sheet explosives' that TSA likes to discuss are actually very thick and bulky compared to paper. (1 mm would be the thinnest, several millimeters or even a quarter inch is more normal) so any inspection of documents should be limited to thumbing through to ensure that no thick rubber sheets are hidden inside. If they are reading any content of the documents, they are exceeding their mandate. OTOH, if TSA is thumbing through a stack of documents, looking for sheet explosives, and happens to see a photo that is obviously child pornography, they can report that to the police. Evidence discovered in this manner has been upheld in court, as long as the original search was limited to searching for WEI in good faith. FWIW. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 19408260)
TSA management directive no. 100.4
Signed by Gale Rossides 9.1.2009 Sorry - wrong date in initial post. OK, found the directive you sort of quoted. But in quoting it you took the data you provided out of the context that the MD specifically put it into. Try reading the entire section again. Section 5: Policy, subsection C (1). Where it pretty much says that if something is discovered incidental to the search that indicates a crime is being committed that the TSO is required to report it to his/her supervisor or a law enforcement official. IOW, we are prohibited from searching for these things, but we do occasionally discover them, and as such are required to report them to those trained to deal with them. Questions?
Originally Posted by Houston.Business
(Post 19413185)
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19445824)
Accurate data is far more useful, thanks. BTW, it was updated on 1/25/2012 by Director Pistole.
OK, found the directive you sort of quoted. But in quoting it you took the data you provided out of the context that the MD specifically put it into. Try reading the entire section again. Section 5: Policy, subsection C (1). Where it pretty much says that if something is discovered incidental to the search that indicates a crime is being committed that the TSO is required to report it to his/her supervisor or a law enforcement official. IOW, we are prohibited from searching for these things, but we do occasionally discover them, and as such are required to report them to those trained to deal with them. Questions? Sorry, your data has been superseded. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19445824)
Sorry, your data has been superseded.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19445824)
IOW, we are prohibited from searching for these things, but we do occasionally discover them, and as such are required to report them to those trained to deal with them. Questions?
1. Has the TSA trained you to detect "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel? 2. Are you aware of any TSO being reprimanded or worse for failing to report "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel and for which you have not been trained to detect (e.g. child pornography, illegal drugs)? If you are, then I would like to represent that person in a action against the TSA. :) If not, then that is evidence of a "requirement" that has no teeth, which doesn't make it much of a requirement now does it. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 19447675)
Cite for revised directive?
|
Originally Posted by Carl Johnson
(Post 19447765)
No it hasn't.
|
Child porno
The TSA is well qualified to search for child porno - they have hired experts who work as screeners. You can sleep better now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1417686.html Especially if you have children who require a through pat down... |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 19447921)
I have two.
1. Has the TSA trained you to detect "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel? 2. Are you aware of any TSO being reprimanded or worse for failing to report "these things" that are unrelated to the safety of air travel and for which you have not been trained to detect (e.g. child pornography, illegal drugs)? If you are, then I would like to represent that person in a action against the TSA. :) If not, then that is evidence of a "requirement" that has no teeth, which doesn't make it much of a requirement now does it. 1.Please show me what “might” be an unrelated threat to the safety of air travel and I’ll show you two ways it can be done. 2. Hmm, punish someone for being wrong about a safety concern. Yeah, that’s a great idea. :rolleyes: 3. I have extensive training in identifying illicit substances. I cant say the same for my fellow TSO’s, but they can bring concerns to those that DO have the training, which is what our management directive requires. Just like we cant arrest someone who breaches security, but we can point that person out to the persons who can. And pretty much that’s going to be the last post I have along this subject line in this forum. Again, if you wish to continue this discussion I suggest that you transfer it to the other forum. |
If you have a problem with a post
report the post, don't insult the poster.
thanks squeakr co Mod TS/S |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 19474283)
And pretty much that’s going to be the last post I have along this subject line in this forum. Again, if you wish to continue this discussion I suggest that you transfer it to the other forum.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:56 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.