Wow! Some reactions in here!

I only mention my military background as a frame of reference. I'm not ashamed of having served in the military, although that seems to be a constant point of controversy in here whenever I do mention it.

I did not misspeak about the public's so-called "right to know."

When it comes to helping the public understand its rights at a screening checkpoint or the specifics of how to prepare for the screening process, I'm all for making that information as public as possible. I thought my participation in this forum was proof of that. Still, there are certain restrictions that I am obligated to abide by even though I have the anonymity of a screen name. I made a promise not to compromise SSI, and I still stick to that promise. Doesn't matter if no one in here would ever know if I compromised SSI: I would.

Even so, I admit that it is often difficult for me to take SSI seriously. That's not because I don't support the policies, procedures or other aspects of TSA screening. It's because I have handled information at a much more sensitive level. I've handled the real stuff. In comparison, SSI is a joke. But only in comparison. I do acknowledge the need for restricting certain information from public disclosure.

When it comes to the general statement made in here that the public has a "right" to know, I vehemently, strongly, and vigorously disagree. The public has no such right. I did not misspeak. But please understand that I was referring to the generality that the public should have unrestricted access to any government information. This is pure nonsense in my eyes.

This does not mean that I believe the public should be kept in the dark or that government should operate without oversight. There are avenues that limit government, and they're good tools. But there's a difference between being held accountable to the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and releasing information willy nilly to any member of the public just because he or she thinks he or she has that right.

And contrary to what my friend Spiff believes, there is no suspension of constitutional rights or due process at the checkpoint. If you violate the law, the very first thing a police officer will do is advise you of the charge along with your right to an attorney. The Constitution is still alive and well.

Back to topic: if any of you bother to scroll through this thread, you will see that I strongly support the OP's suggestion that passenger have a copy of TSA policy as it is stated on the official TSA web site. However, as I cautioned, a TSA supervisor is not obligated to follow whatever is posted on that web site because it is not the official source of TSA screening procedures. I think you'll find, though, that the differences are minimal. I'm just pointing out that given a choice between something you the passenger may have downloaded from a TSA source released to the public and the actual procedures contained in an official SOP, that supervisor is going to refer to the SOP.

I don't understand why this would be such a shock to the lot of you.

I don't even know where to start with you I am so dumbfounded with your responses. FOUO is a classification. It is part of OPSEC. And, I never claimed the public had a right to know anything that was clearly classified TS/SSI. That would be outlandish. You just claim that it doesn't have a right to know because you fail to distinguish between FOUO (a sham classification in my opinion) and TS/SSI or other TS-type information. I know that of which I speak - been there, done that, had classification authority, had all of the clearances you can imagine - and some you can't imagine.

To claim the public doesn't have a right to know policies is outrageous. How is someone to be able to comply with a policy - or a rule or a regulation - unless you know the rule or regulation.

Frankly, I had respect for some of your posts until now. You've been in the government too long. Time to get out.

Interesting understanding was left out. :rolleyes:

"All the way! Airborne!"

Zip up your pants and go back to class. We get it.

Technically, FOUO is a dissemination marker / document designation and not a level of classification. It's for "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) materials, and is often used to exempt information from FOIA requests. I think that's what Bart meant.

I agree it's often abused, though often simply because it's not reviewed as stringently as classified info and is confusingly applied to so much produced data. I've got reams and reams of stuff marked as such piled up in my office, little of which should have ever been marked as such IMHO.

Agreed--and as I said in a prior post, a foundation of western law is that people must be aware of the rules / laws they've got to comply with. IANAL, but it seems the TSA dodges things by using the Coast Guard kangaroo court and hands out "administrative fines" for most violations. :(

And the public IMHO does need to know policies to prevent their abuse. We've got screeners insisting "the rules have changed" and making "policy" on the spot, and an organization which is able to hide behind SSI when anyone complains.

Now, are there things which should be withheld as sensitive to the nature of screening? Probably, if not almost certainly. But SOP is not, IMHO, one of those things. Even though having published rules might give terrorists more to mull over, it's not like any terrorist with an IQ over 60 can't already determine 99.9% of those rules already simply via observation and transiting checkpoints.

And if the information is truly all that sensitive, it's not a great idea that all the screeners themselves be privy to it IMHO. Truly sensitive info about screening--stuff that isn't readily obvious, mind you--should be kept sensitive, and unless absolutely required to do their jobs, not shared with everyone on the front lines.

Anyone else remember in the Count of Monte Cristo when Edmond Dauntes (sp?) is getting interviewed by the magistrate? He asks what he's done and what the charges are and the magistrate just says "that's gov't business." It was also gov't business that he was sent to prison and only with help did he figure out what he really did. His revenge was justified. :D

I hate to see American coming to that. :td:

What don't you understand about people being required to comply with an SOP that is not disclosed? You acknowledge above that the website is not an official source of TSA screening procedures. Well, WE WANT AN OFFICIAL SOURCE. We've been lied to enough times not to trust a screener's or supervisor's word for what is SOP. We want proof.

Oliver North just called.... he'd like for you to stop stealing his lines.

LOL

Bad laws breed disrespect for The Law on the part of both those that enforce and those who are expected to obey them.

:D:D:D Right! Our friend Bart seems to be a good egg who tries to do his job fairly and with respect for the fact that his agency is chock-full of BS in some respects.

Every so often, though, Ollie North or someone doing Jack Nicholson's dialogue facing Tom Cruise in the court room does seem to emerge. :rolleyes:

A few brave souls in a dangerous world taking steps to ensure our nation's survival? At the bleeding work-fare and haven for double dipping retreads laughingly called TSA screening stations? The place where 70% failure rate is deemed "just what we want"? Next we will be hearing that they "walk the ramparts" so that we can sleep safely at night in our comfortable beds and what a debt we owe them. The implication being being, "you have no right to hold us to account." :rolleyes:

I must state not only unequivocally, but also "vehemently, strongly, and vigorously" that this is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!

Semper bloviatus nonsensicus obscurus.

What good is having a copy of anything when the TSA employees can barely read?

Never applied it to TSOs. I was referring to the bigger picture where men and women truly put it on the line. For this primary reason (and many others), the general public will never have the "right" to know.

One more point of clarification, I never said anything about not being held accountable. It is you who equates the general public being privy to classified information as "accountability." And that, my friend, is just absurd.

I agree that there are people who truly put it on the line. And I am truly grateful for that part of their motivation that has to do with serving their country. It is vital that they be kept under strict and unstinting civilian control for the very reason contained in your aphorism about training and fighting. A well trained force that can reason within the parameters of its mission but is neither expected to, allowed to, nor trained to reason outside o that must be controlled by those who are responsible for the larger picture.

No, I do not advocate the abolition of classification of information. I avocate a vigilant watch for those abuses that always have and always occur in practice, Gotta eliminate them as they arise. These include anything done for the purposes of obfuscation not necessary to security. And CYA, as much as it might make one's own job secure, is not a valid public security function. ;)

And, yes, I know that you are not advocating unreasonable classification. However the rhetoric from B films, recruiting posters and service branch mottoes is out of place in a discussion of the TSA. N0?

I'm not the one who said the public has a "right" to know. My response was to one specific forum member who made that naive little comment. It's everyone else who ran with my comment and foolishly thought I was applying it to TSA as a general rule.

Again, I'm all for a well-informed flying public when it comes to screening. The more they know of what to expect, the better prepared they will be processing through the checkpoint, the quicker we screen them and send them on their way. And the TSA web site attempts to do that with its various public releases. However, it was someone else in this thread who erroneously believed that TSA public releases equate with official procedure. I was pointing out a technicality. If a supervisor has to make a decision, that supervisor will refer to the official TSA SOP as opposed to a downloaded copy of a TSA public release statement a passenger happens to be carrying. And I think it's reasonable to expect that. It's also reasonable to expect that whatever it is TSA releases over the internet had better be consistent with whatever it is the supervisor finds in the SOP. When it's not, it is supremely frustrating for both passenger and screener alike.

I remember last year when the liquids-gels-aerosols policy first went into effect how frustrating it was that the TSA web site didn't reflect such a major change in policy until a week or so after the sudden crackdown. It was frustrating for me, too. I remember turning to a supervisor after we both looked up the web site to see what was being put out and telling him, "this is the 21st century, right? I mean, click and drag and presto, instant change over the internet!" (If you recall, there was an informal "Ask Bart" thread that I participated in---even though it seems that a recent attempt to open up another similar thread was perceived as a violation of TOS---but I digress.) But some folks quickly forget these things, which is why I'm slightly puzzled that anyone thinks I'm not willing nor advocate that information be shared with the public. I'm honest enough, though, to share with you that there is a limit to that sharing.

Well, I've rambled enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

A great well written dialog by Aaron Sorkin (and brilliantly performed by none other than Jack Nicholson) but actually quite inappropriate for any TSA screener to use as his mantra or mission statement.

Oh and I almost forgot since we are discussing keeping a copy of what TSA publishes for the public (versus what the TSA screeners think they can do to the public). I have a great photo of the sign at Patrick Henry Field (PHF), VA check point where it's written "boarding passes & ID must be presented".

Amazing how people are treated differently at Newport News (PHF) than at Fort Lauderdale (FLL). For some strange reason when I showed my passport to the ID checker (with the photo page open) he looked at it, wrote his initials on the boarding pass and said have a nice day. The ID checkers at FLL would prefer to say "Do you want to fly today?".