I wonder if carrying a copy of the TSA rules and operating procedures would be useful
 

Since we can all now load thousands of printed pages into a PED without adding one iota to the weight or bulk of our carry-on, it would be trivial to have in our pocket at all times every word of the documentation governing how the TSO are supposed to do their jobs.

The fact that in electronic form the rules would be keyword-searchable is just gravy.

Where would you get a copy? The TSA cowards who publish such things claim they are SSI.

The TSA also claims that there are new rules that are just recently introduced that you didn't know about as well.

Yup, bully TSA agents who cite their own rules because they can, for the fun of it.

This is why many hate the TSA - it doesn't play by its own rules, and it makes up arbitrary rules on the spot or by whim.

Well, whatever you download from the TSA web site is not the official TSA screening SOP. However, it is TSA public releases as they relate to policy.

I think it's a great idea. I'm a firm believer in an informed public; and I'm a strong believer in the traveler having a clear understanding of what to expect during the screening process.

Holy smoke. Not only are they invisible, but also exempt from FoIA. Never knew that. Geheime Staatspolizei, anyone?

It is not classified information, but it's not public information neither. It is, as stated, sensitive security information, which is comparable to FOUO or "for official use only" information as well as LE-sensitive or "law enforcement sensitive" information. Nothing spookier than that.

However, the TSA web site does publish releases to the public that helps travelers prepare for the screening process and addresses a variety of situations. I think it's a great idea to download these to a PDA or other similar personal device for immediate retrieval should any questions arise. You can't necessarily hold a TSA supervisor to it since it really is not official SOP information; however, you can demonstrate that you were complying with TSA-promulgated information.

I wonder if carrying a copy of the TSA rules would be useful?
 

Absolutely! For: wiping up spills; origami; wrapping fragile items; paper airplanes; steadying wobbly tables; making notes; giving/taking phone #'s; emergency napkins/T.P.; A whole plethora of helpful uses! The sky's the limit!

I can see the benefit for self-education. There should be no way that a passenger-carried document would be persuasive authority to a screener that they just made up a rule. The TSA staff needs to be trained from their own sources - and a document that's been out of their own chain of custody could have been trivially edited.

I simply carry a comfy pillow. Nobody at TSA expects the comfy pillow.

It was trivially written and whimsically enforced. Moreover, only one side has access to the document, so it might as well be a comic book for all the good it does the passengers.

Does one need to know how to read in order to get a job with the TSA?

Yes. Or were you trying to be sarcastic? :rolleyes:

I was being sarcastic, but there's no reason to believe the language requirement is actually enforced when the work values and interpersonal skills requirements clearly are not. @:-)

Carrying documentation can be useful in the case of a reasonable screener or supervisor. In the case of a rogue "Respect mah authoritah" screener or supervisor, it's pissing in the wind. Over and over and over travelers on this forum cite instances of being told "the rules changed today" or yesterday, or whenever. Seldom is this the case. The majority of the time it's a "make up the rules as we go" screener on a power trip.

I think the OP was referring to an electronic copy downloaded onto a PDA or other similar portable device as opposed to reams of paper tucked in a notebook.

Don't forget, the airlines can be a powerful ally should you encounter an unreasonable TSA supervisor.

Yes, that would be a reasonable interpretation of "...load thousands of printed pages into a PED without adding one iota to the weight or bulk of our carry-on..."

Which brings us full circle to the "ability to read" requirement...

Funny, cause as a crew member I used to have a copy of the SOPs that affected me during my travels. I carried it through security one day so I would not be subject to secondary screening and they insisted that I didn't have the latest revision. My revision was dated the week previous and I highly doubt a new revision was issued that quickly (and of course it wasn't). Most of the screeners DO NOT follow the SOPs in place. They like to make up their own rules to fit the situation. STL is/was king of new rule per day. I can at least say, the harassment of crew members has gone down over the past couple of years but it is still there not to mention the daily harassment of normal pax.

I love the TSA screeners that try to engage me in a conversation to see if I have been drinking. I usually just greet them with a series of grunts and shrugs since I am not the most friendly person first thing in the morning.

Maybe it would make sense if it were. Whatever either a passenger or screener can download on the spot is the final arbiter of disputes, because new rules would go on the web site first as a matter of course. In fact, that's where the screeners themselves would find out about changes.

I understand what the OP was referring to. What I am referring to are the screeners that continue to tell travelers "the website hasn't been updated" when physically shown what the site says on an actual computer connected to the internet at that moment.

Precisely.

You mean screeners that lie. @:-)

What????? A screener lying???? NEVER!!!!! :rolleyes:

How DARE you, you whiner! ;)

I've encountered three-stripe supervisor liars. :td:

Comrade Kip Hawley is a disgusting little liar, so it's no surprise to see the lying permeate through the employees.

Direct evidence of the binary liquid explosive lie making air travel less safe. Most of the screeners know it is a joke, so how can they take anything else about their jobs seriously?

Every encounter with a water bottle wielding passenger denigrates the TSA in both the eyes of the passenger and the screener.

Well phrased, birdstrike, well phrased.

I hope I don't sound completely stupid, but what does SSI and SOP stand for? Thanks!

Sensitive Security Information

Standard Operating Procedure

Thanks, Spiffffff! :-D

Seldom ? Try never.

I said seldom because I hate to speak in absolutes unless I have evidence that it always happens. The instance I was thinking of was when the new electronics screening was implemented. I couldn't remember if all the details were posted on the website before the screening started.

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.