They would be marginally useful at best, and possibly even harmful if the insistence upon them to a TSO ticked them off enough.

The problems are several-fold.

First, the actual rules are SSI. This is IMHO a major violation of the spirit of western legal tradition, as you can be found to be violating rules you don't actually know about and will never actually be allowed to see, even in court. The TSA gets around this by issuing "administrative fines" vs. charging you with a crime, for example, and by playing the "security" card, but it still stinks.

That means you don't actually have the rules, and have to rely on the TSA Web site's "recommendations" (many of which are loaded with weasel-words to permit huge latitude in interpretation by screeners).

That brings up the second point. The TSOs can (and do) blatantly lie and claim "we have new rules" or "that's not the current profile," etc. I was fed that line many times during the early shoe carnival era, when TSOs insisted my shoes (specifically chosen to comply with the shoe profile) "had" to come off. I've been fed that line recently on electronics, when I was given a "warning" by a TSO for not separating out a portable hard drive from my bag ("Any electronics bigger than a cell phone have to come out," she said, and when I said the rule was for DVD players and console video games, I got the, "Those are the old rules," line. :rolleyes:)

Thirdly, if a supervisor refuses to back a complaining pax (which happens fairly frequently, though there are good supes out there who do come down hard on TSOs making their own policy as they go), there's little to do. A printout is only going to make the involved TSA staff claim you're being confrontational / difficult / etc. and that the printout is "wrong." A written complaint to the TSA gets a form letter back loaded with weasel words (yes, I've filed complaints and compliments several times--the responses tell me human beings hardly ever actually read them). You can try the FSD (mixed results--depends on the FSD) or even elected reps, but the latter are likely to just make some speech about "security."

Now, I do carry a printout of the FAA & TSA rules stating that photographic gear isn't limited to the 1 carryon + 1 personal item limit, for times I travel with an extra bag of camera gear. I haven't had to show it to anyone yet, though I have argued with a TSO, several contract ID checkers, and one UA ramp employee about the rules before. They've backed down every time, although the TSO tried to insist until a UA employee backed me and claimed I didn't have to check my camera gear, and one contract ID checker insisted I open the bag to prove it was "all camera stuff."

That's why people like bart would serve the flying public far better by taking some of these suggestions up the chain of command rather than challenging posters who have legitimate grievances with some of the practices of TSA (not to mention workable solutions to some of them).

Simple modification: on the front page of http://tsa.gov, place the following banner:


There. Done. The little Napoleons with the plastic gloves can't use that "website not updated" crap to intimidate or hassle passengers ever again.

But Comrade, the TSA does not want its employees' hands tied by silly things like published rules. What TSA says goes, Comrade. Obey, or it is off to Gulag with you!

Bart, I'm not sure what your position is at TSA, but clearly not far enough up the chain of command to know that FOUO, LE-sensitive are two of the most abused classifications not only within DHS/TSA, but within the entire federal government.

Most of those with the ability to classify documents routinely classify documents as FOUO because "the public wouldn't understand" the documents or they might be "taken out of context."

The public is entitled to know what SOP are and the rationale behind them. Hiding behind FOUO or LES classifications furthers cynicism. What you ought to do is take what you see and read on this board to your FSD or better yet, to Kip directly. Call his CoS and tell him what you read here. Be constructive and make changes.

The better informed the public is about risks, threats and procedures to deal with those, the stronger the nation becomes. Hiding behind FOUO is spooky despite your protestations.

Hear! Hear!^

(But I do understand that no third-tier manager wants to do anything that might open a hole that could be exploited to attack through. The career consequences are just too scary.)

Hey! I like that. :cool:

FOUO isn't a classification. It's a caveat that means although the information is not classified, it is not something that should be released to the public without undergoing a certain approval process. Most FOUO information involves procedural policy, proprietary information or other information such as protocol itineraries.

No. The public does not have a right to know. Period.

I will tell you that SSI makes me giggle. But that's because for 20 years of my life I dealt with classified information. Still, I'm well aware of the OPSEC rationale behind caveats such as SSI. I agree that TSA overdoes it. But I will not agree that TSA should publicly release its policies across the board just to cater favor from its strongest critics.

I didn't make any protestations. I was explaining that what you read on the TSA public web site is not the same as the official information contained in the TSA SOP because of the SSI caveat.

Still, I disagree that the public has any right or entitlement to sensitive compartmented information, classified defense information, and much of what is called sensitive but unclassified information. Just understand that my view is based on my career as an intelligence officer instead of as a TSA officer.

Draft Proposal, Version 2.0:

With you speaking as an intelligence officer, I might agree. You speaking as a TSA employee, I emphatically do not.

As an institution, the TSA is clearly hiding malfeasance and incompetence behind a quasi-military shroud of secrecy.

It must be exposed to the light of day before we can move beyond it.

You've complained about TSA policy in the past. Why not blow away all the FUD? It might give us a chance to implement real security. Isn't that what you would really like to see?

"Clearly hiding"? Got any proof to support this? I mean something that would stand up in court and not be laughed away by a judge/magistrate? Just asking.

I've shared some insights and haven't pulled any punches when it comes to how I think TSA could improve. However, please don't misconstrue this as disaffection, disillusionment or dissatisfaction with TSA.

The steps I've taken to improve TSA in my little corner of the world was to voluntarily become an instructor. Now I find myself on the staff as a full-time instructor...for the next five months at least.

In fact, tomorrow I begin teaching another class of newly hired recruits.

It's all about training. Train as you fight; fight as you've been trained.

Yes, they do.

Unpublished/secret rules and laws are pure Communism at its finest. :td: :td:

Spiff, I do respect many of your opinions even when you go over the top.

However, my friend, you're being a tad bit naive about the realities of living in a dangerous world and the steps a few brave souls take to ensure our nation's survival.

I'm not at all naive about such matters. The reality is that they aren't happening at US airports "security" checkpoints.

No passenger should ever be surprised by regulations/rules. They should be published so that they can be complied with and commented on.

Checks for explosives should be 100% transparent to the passenger. There are no liquid or solid explosive precursors that would not be detected by ETP/ETD.

Currently, the TSA has zero credibility. It makes passengers take off shoes for inspection by a device that does not detect explosives. This process also permits the passenger to carry explosives across the checkpoint at will in their pants or body cavities. Furthermore, the TSA lies about liquids. See above.

The TSA should be exposed to the public for the sham it is and the charlatans who run it should be ejected from their offices at high velocity. Only then can credibility be restored to this disgrace of an agency. Better yet, it should be destroyed and the government banished from US airports forever. The government has only added expense and harassment to traveling by air, nothing more.

Private companies can and will do better when the disease that is the TSA is expunged from our airports and the federal goverment is never again allowed to interfere with airport operation or security.

PLEASE tell me you misspoke, Bart. The public, the paying passengers, do not have a right to know what rules they are expected to follow? What the procedures are for seeking redress of incorrect action by a TSO? What regulations they can be detained, fined, and/or arrested for?

If you did NOT misspeak, you earn :td::td::td::td::td::mad::mad::mad:, and Spiff is right in every single anti-TSA remark he's ever stated here.

We, as allegedly-free citizens of the United States, have ***EVERY*** right to know what rules and regulations we must follow, what rules and regulations the TSA must follow, and what will (or can) happen when either side does NOT follow them. Or else the airports can and must be classified as the most-blatant manifestation to date of an emerging police state, and I'm DEFINITELY not misspeaking there.

Expecting the paying passengers to accept that they can't know what policies they are expected to follow, what they can "legally" be punished for, and what to do about screeners who make it up as they go (apparently just to frak with those same paying passengers, on the flimsiest little whim), is WRONG. SSI is WRONG. Punishing people for not obeying directives they can't know is WRONG.

I don't particularly give a d@#$ about your former career as an intelligence type, and I say that as a person who formerly dealt with classified information and materials in my own time in the military. Your current organization PUNISHES those it claims to serve for alleged violation of its rules, and frequently refuses to tell us what rules were violated, what the basis for them is, or even whether or not those rules really exist. Then we the public have basically *NO* means of appeal - because we don't have the information we need to do so. You really expect any sympathy from us after THAT?

And *THEN* we can get into the rampant abuse of imagined authori-tah by screeners all over the country - all that is just about the (so-called) LEGITIMATE rules!

I don't agree with a lot of what you say here, but usually I respect your typical efforts to inject some reasoning into defense of the TSA. You have not been a blind apologist for the organization, most of the time, anyways, that I've seen. IMO you really went over the top with this one, undone a lot of that respect by trotting out the company line and your "appeal to authority".:(

Nothing that would have put McCarthy in prison, though many people at the time were well aware of what was happening. @:-)

I am angered and saddened by this, all at the same time. TSA is entirely about disillusionment and dissatisfaction with respect to security. Are you familiar with saddle functions? You can appear to be surmounting a peak when your goals are all actually below sea level.

Do the constant references to Bartworld not set alarm bells ringing in you mind?

While I normally accept things at face value, the profound bureaucratic F*uck-up you endorse today leads me to reconsider our military involvement in other arenas rather than the other way around.

The references to your past have an opposite effect to the one you intend.