MIKESILV

I am not sure where the info used the TSA is coming from but
a ) lawn fertilizer has NO glycerin or nitro and I can only assume or hope they do know the difference between nitrogen and nitro.

b) If that is actually accurate I should be on the no-fly list, The fact is I have close contact EVERY DAY with much more concentrated forms of nitrogen fertilizer than the watered down stuff put on lawns (the same basic DAP) and in over 200 segments and maybe 10 random swabs I NEVER ONCE set of the alarms.
But then I aways thought ( or more to the point I KNOW ) that those machines dont really work, the whole thing is just a big show.

mike

PTravel

You could say what is done with the data, that it is subject to the various protections afforded by specific statute and, generally, by the US Constitution, and that this can be confirmed by looking at the rules and regulations for TSA, as well as by standard FOIA requests.

Oh, wait . . . you can't say that, can you?

Sorry, but I'm not a party to your quality control procedures, nor do I see what my personal information has to do with quality control. I am, however, a citizen of the United States and, as such, have certain guarantees against government intrusion and compelled disclosure of information pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.

I'm neither for nor against the TSA supervisor. False positives occur -- that's fine, I don't blame anyone for that. However, if you have no reasonable suspicion (which is the Constitutional test for a Kelly stop for law enforcement officers) then you have no basis for collecting my personal information from me when a false positive occurs.

Sorry, but you completely miss the point. There is absolutely NO reason why TSA needs my personal information if a false positive occurs. My personal information offers no insight into why there was a false positive, nor does it provide any basis for avoiding future false positives. In short, there is no reason whatsoever why my personal information should be required. What there is, however, is an administration that has, for all intents and purposes, suspended Constitutional protections (which cannot be done by vote of Congress, regardless of what secret legislation has been passed) and that is compiling suspect lists based on the flimsiest of bases, or no bases at all, and using that information, among other things, to preclude people from flying and to subject them to all sorts of additional harrassment if they are unfortunate enough to wind up on that list.

I have no problem with individual TSA agents or supervisors doing there job. I have a very big problem with the federal government exercising power over me in areas which, per the Constitution, it is strictly precluded from doing so.

I would be far more relieved than your supervisors if the government wasn't requiring you to collect personal information that is irrelevant to any legitimate government purpose and protected from compelled disclosure under the Constitution.

And the part that you don't see is that I don't care if TSA supervisors are called out on the carpet. I only care that my 4th and 5th Amendment rights are being violated. It's unfortunate that TSA supervisors catch the heat from the government when United States citizens object to this un-Constitutional invasion, but that's hardly a justification for submitting to it.

Bart

a) Derivatives and components. If there's a trace amount, the machine will detect it and classify it as one of a limited number of explosive-related components. It's up to a TSA supervisor to determine if it's really nitro or something that isn't an explosive component.

b) You don't have to believe that the ETD machines work. I could really care less. However, based on my limited expertise in counterterrorism, intelligence, security and unconventional warfare, I'm confident in the technology. We can compare resumes and penises later, if you wish.

Bart

Oh boy, the ol' my rights are being violated argument again. Ok, sport. If you truly believe that in your heart of hearts, then take a stand the next time you go to the checkpoint. Absolutely refuse to provide your name and other personal data should you be asked to provide it as part of the ETD alarm resolution protocol. If you're right, then the judge will decide in your favor (if it goes to trial; however, it won't...you'll simply be denied entry into the airside). Before you publicly embarrass yourself, run it by a lawyer first and see what he or she says.

MIKESILV

I suppose that paragraph summarises the reason why I have stayed away from this forum.
If might surprise you that I have no real need to try to and prove my expertise to you. You are too narrow-minded to comprehend it.

I KNOW the technology does not detect nitrogen based fertilizers period,
end of story.

So enjoy yourself trying to impress others playing OO7 or whatever.

mike

Bart

Too bad you took it so personally. Notice how one-way this is? I get pot shots all the time. I respond in kind and all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. Oh well, I guess I, too, will resign myself to an emotional moment and somehow try not to let my fragile sense of self-esteem collapse.

Fair enough, pal?

FliesWay2Much

...me, too. I guess that's why I'm so anal about this issue every time it comes up here.

It would be interesting for someone to FOIA the DHS and request all TSA documents having to do with compliance with the Privacy Act....

PatrickHenry1775

It would also be futile. Can you say "state secrets", or "national security"? God forbid we out TSA and its procedures with such impertinent requests!

daw617

That's not an answer. You're saying the TSA needs our names because the TSA needs our names. What is done with the names on that list? What are they used for? I fail to see the justification for the reporting requirements. What we're really asking is not why the supervisor asked for the names (I understand that the supervisor is following the policy), we're asking for a justification for the policy and for the reporting requirements. Saying that this is in the reporting requirements does not explain why this needs to be in the reporting requirements.

How does having our names on that sheet help audit those records? What specifically is the name intended for?

Can you explain how you know? What is done with those sheets after they are filled out? Are they sent to headquarters? Do you know what headquarters does with them? Is it possible that HQ scans those sheets, or stores them? Is there a document destruction/retention policy we can see?

Is it possible that unbeknownst to you, the names actually are being retained? I have seen situations (outside the TSA) where frontline workers *thought* that information was not being retained, and in good faith told people that the information was not retained, while in reality the information actually was retained in ways not known to the frontline representatives.

daw617

Well, that's a defect of the policy, then. If there really was a true need for this information, it ought to be possible to say what that need is. The inability to explain is a failure of the policy, not of the questioner.

If there truly is nothing sinister going on, then it ought to be easy to explain the true reason for this information.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who would ask questions about this policy must be unreasonable. I disagree. I think it is completely reasonable to ask for evidence that there is nothing sinister behind this. If you don't have answers to these questions, that doesn't make us unreasonable to point out that the questions remain unanswered.

Xyzzy

Has anyone who was asked for name, etc. actually asked the TSA for a Privacy Act declaration? If so, what happened?

daw617

Oh, fer crying out loud. Are we next going to hear adages such as "Love it, or leave it"?

Needless to say, such an attitude is totally unreasonable. There's nothing wrong with pointing out bad government policy. There's nothing wrong with insisting that our government follow the law (and issue Privacy Act forms when so required). Nor is there anything wrong with pointing to bad policy. You shouldn't have to get arrested to have standing to comment on public policy.

Not everyone has the time, money, or inclination to sue for every little violation of our rights -- nor should they. A lawsuit ought to be a matter of last recourse, not first recourse. We already have far too many lawsuits clogging the courts. You seem to be suggesting "either sue, or shut up" -- and that's unreasonable. Surely if the idea of democracy means anything, we ought to be able to discuss policy constructively without taking everything into the courtroom.

PTravel

I'm a licensed attorney and I dare say I know a little bit more about the Constitution than you do. I don't intend to make any one-man stands at the airport. I will, however, correct people such as yourself, who think these kinds of incursions on our Constitutional rights are unimportant.

Do your job, if you must. Don't insult those of us who actually understand the Constitution and the law by trying to minimize the abridgement of rights the execution of this particular part of your job represents.

I am a lawyer, and the only one who has publicly embarrased himself is you.

Paul N. Tauger, Esq.
California State Bar No. 160552
Admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of the State of California, the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. Martindale rated AV.

Okay, "sport"?

ILoveLA

I'd like to bet the information on the passenger names are only retained a few days - long enough to know that the day's flights all arrived safely with no incidents. If there was an incident, then the alarm records can be examined to see who cleared that passenger for flight.

It's like videotape surveillance in a convenience store. They only keep the tapes for a short period of time, then record over them. If the store is robbed, then they keep that particular tape and turn it over to the police as evidence.

edited to fix quote closing tag

whirledtraveler

We can hope. There's far too much secrecy in this area.