A question for the TSA screeners monitoring this thread:

How do you actually cut off locks?

I assume that you're equipped with something efficient and minimally invasive, such as bolt cutters or master keys, rather than something courser, for example, pliers or a sledgehammer. I ask because, as other posters here have eloquently reasoned, I plan to lock my luggage and risk that my lock will be destroyed -- and replaced with a plastic cable once a search yields no banned items -- rather than risk that my more expensive belongings will be damaged, soiled, lost, or stolen. (And, as others have noted, if the lock and/or TSA-installed plastic cable goes missing, I have some tangible evidence that someone other than TSA personnel tampered with my bag.)

Would you recommend that I use locks with (a) a longer shackle that will make snipping easier for you and your associates, or (b) a lock that will disintegrate easier when vigorously twisted or struck by a blunt object? I seek to avoid undue damage to my luggage's zippers, lock holes, etc., so your input will help inform my choice of locks.

Thank you.

------------------

"I am confident that ordinary TSA employees working airport checkpoints see little or no information that is truly sensitive. Perhaps these employees are led to believe that they are in on some secret, because it helps them to feel that their job is important. That's a worthy objective, but let's not allow ourselves to be fooled."

Actually everything we see in print is SSI. All our procedures are also SSI. As for it being truely sensitive, that depends on your point of view. Whether it is or not I am not willing to risk my job divuldging it to anyone.

I can only speak for the airport I work at but we use master keys and bolt cutters. If it hard cased luggage with latch locks then we have to pry/break them. Unfortunatly I was told today that the airlines will no longer call a passenger to come down and unlock their items so we must break/cut/pry all locks now. I would suggest to all the passengers out there to complain heavly about this to the airlines.


PS Lockheed is NOT a very good company to work for in my opinion. From my experience with them they care nothing for the health of their employees.

Well DrTSA, that all depends on where you work. You are correct that some work with some very dangerous stuff. Fortunately I do not work with any of those (chemical skins). Ejection seats can be very dangerous too, but not in the same way as some of the stuff Lockheed deals with.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "618+ successful ejections, you can rely on ACES II"

No adult can actually believe this. It's just impossible.

Bruce

Wrong thread for the above but if you read the rest of what I wrote it is pretty explanitory. I do not have to believe it I just have to follow it because that is what my job entails.

Oops. Sorry. Right thread. I guess I should clarify and say that everything the TSA puts out to us(screening force) is SSI and says either SSI or for official use only at the bottom.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Screeners signed an agreement stating that they would note give out any information obtained in written or verbal form that is deemed SSI.

This is no different than working for a company that won't allow you to share business secrets with others.

Do you think the government is just going to put out all their procedures and just say, "Hey Joe Terrorist, this is exactly what we do! Oh, and here are some suggestions on how you might try and bring the next plane down!"

Fact: There is such a thing as SSI. Screeners have agreed not to divulge any information that is deemed SSI (regardless of whether you or I think that it is actually sensitive in nature). There are approximately 65,000 people who know things that you don't and aren't about to tell you. This is just the way it is, accept it.

Well, I for one am bound by a non-disclosure agreement. There are things about my job that I cannot divulge. That comes from the government as well. All part of working within the military industrial complex. The same was true when I was in the USAF and loaded "special" weapons on F-111's in europe and was bound by the "Personnel Reliability Program" (PRP). There are just some things that the government just wants to keep close. By the way, there were hundreds of "weapons troops" so the numbers don't mean much, but the punishment for disclosure does.

I guess that when it comes to the TSA if people knew their procedures they could find a way to bypass them. Did anyone see the super bowl? Did it not look like Tampa Bay had a copy of Oaklands play book? They did have their former coach, so I guess thats about close enough. Give me the TSA playbook and I could figure out a way to get through them. If I can, so could a terrorist.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You don't need to know how it works, you just know that it will."

Edited for content.

[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 02-11-2003).]

It isn't hard to understand that screeners have to follow the rules forced on them as part of their jobs. This doesn't mean though, that you or anyone else has to believe that this really is sensitive information.

I might say that it is a crock when you say that you can't give a reason for something because it is considered SSI, but that doesn't mean I hold you personally responsible. I know you are just following rules. I still think those rules are BS though. And, I am sorry but 66,000 people can not keep a secret.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-12-2003).]

No, 66,000 people cannot keep a secret. The information that the basic screener has is probably not all that sensitive either. However, the TSA has determined that they would rather not have their procedures released to the public for security reasons. Now, if anyone can show me any corporation/company/agency that lets its business plan or operation procedures be released to the public then I will agree that the TSA is being unreasonable. In the business world I believe that such leaks usually end up in an insider trading charge ala Martha Stewart.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "When everything else has let you down, you can depend on ACES II."

Ummmm, how about in numerous accounting and meeting documents, none marked confidential or really tracked in any way? As far as operation procedures, these things are distributed all OVER the place, including taping them to the door with emergency supplies!

I have worked in business offices for a VERY long time, and trust me when I say that if you do not do business with the government on BIG contracts the confidentiality is limited to those products and trademarks that make them bucks and little to nothing else.

Rarely do they even try to enforce the one about leaving to work for a competitor, or that any idea you come up with while an employee you have to delete from your brain when leaving.

Coffee delivery guys stocking the accounting breakroom of a typical American firm could glean enough during a few days' worth of break gossip alone to fairly accurately lay out the company's plans and operations.

S

Dr. TSA, thanks for responding to my query about lock cutting.


------------------

Day to day operations are one thing. Proprietary information is another. I would guess that the TSA considers its operation procedures more in that vein. Afterall, if they let everyone know how they do their job, then one could circumvent them and do something nefarious. For example, if we were to find out that they select every third passenger for secondary screening, how hard would it to be to jump in there and be the fourth passenger? I am not saying that their information equates to national security stuff, but I don't see where we need to know all their reasons for their procedures.

ACES II, The number one ejection seat in service in the world today. "You might want to try the rest, but I would not recommend it."

I don’t find the Constitution to be a laughing matter. It speaks volumes about your character if you do.

You’re not the only veteran here, mister. I defended the Constitution in uniform as well. You’re not more qualified to pass judgment on what is and isn’t Constitutional simply by dint of your veteran status.

Your hyperbole accomplishes no purpose. If you would like to have a serious discussion of matters Constitutional, I would be pleased to oblige you, either on this board or privately, through e-mail.

Actually, the issue is not removal of rights. The issue is government overstepping its bounds, which are quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution. However, when government oversteps its bounds, a necessary concomitant is the infringement of personal liberty. The two tend to go hand-in-hand.

Hmm. Perhaps you were out sick the day the Fourth Amendment was discussed in your high school Civics class.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Opening my bag and searching it without probable cause – simply because I happen to be traveling by air – is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights. You don’t have “probable cause” to search my person or my effects simply because I’m getting on a plane.

I don’t believe anyone has seriously asserted a right to bring a boxcutter on board. Do you think that someone has?

I don’t believe that’s true, but since we’re not permitted to know anything of the TSA’s workings and internal policies, I think it’s best if we defer that part of the discussion. I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to. In the end, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I haven’t been wanded in over three months, and I generally travel 2x/week. In any event, that’s not what this topic was about. It was about locking luggage. Let’s not lose sight of that.

In my opinion (and, apparently, in the opinions of many other posters here), leaving luggage unlocked is an invitation to theft. Not necessarily by the TSA, mind you, but theft nonetheless. And who’s to say whom the responsible party is? The TSA is already excusing itself from liability for theft – even though the TSA demands we leave our luggage unlocked. That’s analogous to a shopping center requiring that I leave my car unlocked in the lot while I go in to shop, even though the shopping center posts signs saying “No Bailment Created.” What happens if my car is stolen?

If something takes a walk from inside my luggage, the TSA won’t accept responsibility for it. And neither will the airlines. How, exactly, are we supposed to trust organizations that won’t accept responsibility for situations they create?

I don’t think you need to travel much to realize that leaving luggage unlocked is a potentially significant problem.

Perhaps you and I are looking at this differently. What, exactly, do you see as the “bigger picture?” I’d like to understand better where you’re coming from.

Are you saying that if we stop worrying about it, it won’t be a problem any longer? Should we refrain from pointing out when our government oversteps its Constitutional bounds? I really don’t think that’s what you mean, but that’s how I’m reading you.

Actually, that is exactly how things get changed in our society. People find a situation or condition they deem intolerable and then press their elected officials to change it.

Highly unlikely. Unless you want to assert that OBL is running the show over at the Department of Transportation.