"Evolution" - New TSA Blog
Feb 1, 2008 | 5:09 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Which one was it? If it was mine, I'll let you know. 
I know goalie got a few comments on there too.
I more or less said the same thing, and also stated that while they were exempt from some parts of the PA, they weren't exempt from giving us a notice telling why they wanted it, how long it would be kept and what would be done with it. And also asked how they expect us to respect their authority when they don't respect federal law.
I'm not expecting it to be published and it hasn't been yet ... only 2 hours later.
I also wondered if an FTer posted this comment:
"The TSA hires people that couldn't get hired at McDonald's."
I know goalie got a few comments on there too.
My post re: Privacy Act said something to the effect of when a screener asks for your DL to record your information when you ask for a complaint form, why do we not get a Privacy Act statement informing us of what happens with that information.
As I said in an earlier post re medical issues and shoe removal, the fact that this question was not posted tells me that the TSA knows they are at fault and that they are required to give you a Privacy Act notice, but won't admit it. If they ignored your PA question also, that supports my belief.
As I said in an earlier post re medical issues and shoe removal, the fact that this question was not posted tells me that the TSA knows they are at fault and that they are required to give you a Privacy Act notice, but won't admit it. If they ignored your PA question also, that supports my belief.
I'm not expecting it to be published and it hasn't been yet ... only 2 hours later.
I also wondered if an FTer posted this comment:
"The TSA hires people that couldn't get hired at McDonald's."
Last edited by Superguy; Feb 1, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Feb 1, 2008 | 5:24 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Which one was it? If it was mine, I'll let you know.
I know goalie got a few comments on there too.
I more or less said the same thing, and also stated that while they were exempt from some parts of the PA, they weren't exempt from giving us a notice telling why they wanted it, how long it would be kept and what would be done with it. And also asked how they expect us to respect their authority when they don't respect federal law.
I'm not expecting it to be published and it hasn't been yet ... only 2 hours later.
I also wondered if an FTer posted this comment:
"The TSA hires people that couldn't get hired at McDonald's."
I know goalie got a few comments on there too.
I more or less said the same thing, and also stated that while they were exempt from some parts of the PA, they weren't exempt from giving us a notice telling why they wanted it, how long it would be kept and what would be done with it. And also asked how they expect us to respect their authority when they don't respect federal law.
I'm not expecting it to be published and it hasn't been yet ... only 2 hours later.
I also wondered if an FTer posted this comment:
"The TSA hires people that couldn't get hired at McDonald's."
The response above is terrible.
The constitution doesn't say we have the liberty to travel across state borders on foot, but not on horse (since motor vehicles didn't exist then).......
Feb 1, 2008 | 5:34 pm
#63
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In the home of the "brave"?
Programs: Whatever will get me out of Y and into C or F!
Posts: 3,748
Feb 1, 2008 | 5:37 pm
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I also posted under one of the threads where I saw a TSO say that we gave up our 4th amendment rights for the search. I asked about their mission creep since they're using it as a dragnet for other purposes (ie not for prohibited items). I also asked about 4th amendment rights once the search goes from administrative to criminal. I bet that one doesn't make it either ...
RDP'd to my work PC and unfortunately, it didn't save my posts.
Feb 1, 2008 | 6:37 pm
#65
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 13,344
Not sure if this will be posted or not, but I just added:
We are frequently told the reason that liquids can't be taken on board is they might be hazardous or explosive. If that is the case why are these liquids discarded into open containers at security checkpoints and not treated like hazardous materials?
If in fact they are prohibited because they are deemed to be hazardous, isn't it contradictory to take these confiscated goods and donate them to homeless shelters or other aid agencies? If they are okay for the homeless then shouldn't they be okay for us?
To me it is hypocrisy to claim they are hazardous and take them away from us, but not treat them as hazardous. If they are, full hazmat procedures should be in place at EVERY checkpoint. If the liquids are not hazardous, then we needed to be able take them through security.
You can't have it both ways.
We are frequently told the reason that liquids can't be taken on board is they might be hazardous or explosive. If that is the case why are these liquids discarded into open containers at security checkpoints and not treated like hazardous materials?
If in fact they are prohibited because they are deemed to be hazardous, isn't it contradictory to take these confiscated goods and donate them to homeless shelters or other aid agencies? If they are okay for the homeless then shouldn't they be okay for us?
To me it is hypocrisy to claim they are hazardous and take them away from us, but not treat them as hazardous. If they are, full hazmat procedures should be in place at EVERY checkpoint. If the liquids are not hazardous, then we needed to be able take them through security.
You can't have it both ways.
Feb 1, 2008 | 8:25 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still PAL Premier Elite & Hilton Diamond
Posts: 25,429
How does anyone even know that these so-called bloggers are actually real people?
Remember, it was DHS that recently did a phony press conference for the news cameras.
Remember, it was DHS that recently did a phony press conference for the news cameras.
Feb 1, 2008 | 9:17 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Feb 1, 2008 | 11:14 pm
#68
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 16,127
That's money. 
Not a sugar-coated handjob, thankfully ...
You don't say? 
Maybe the rank-and-file 80% is finally getting it. Didn't baggage glitches once top the list?
Here's a story from the AP about Kippy the Liar's new blog:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080131/airpo...blog.html?.v=5
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080131/airpo...blog.html?.v=5
Originally Posted by The Associated Press
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted last month found that only the Federal Emergency Management Agency, still dealing with its mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, ranked below the TSA among the least-liked federal agencies. TSA tied with tax collectors in the ranking of a dozen executive branch agencies.
The AP poll found that the more people traveled, the less they liked TSA, but also that 53 percent of air travelers though the agency did a "very" or "somewhat" good job. Their top complaint: the inconvenience of security.
Feb 2, 2008 | 1:18 am
#70
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 16,127
fyi ...
Well, i did put it up on the TSA blog (no answer yet) so we'll see. I used my real name there though it's amazing the number of anonymous posters to that blog. Gee, what are they afraid of?
Anyway TSA Blog: time 10:34 a.m. 1/31
Anyway TSA Blog: time 10:34 a.m. 1/31
Feb 2, 2008 | 8:29 am
#74
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates & Arizona, USA
Programs: UA MM/1P, EK Ag, Marriott Life Ti, Hilton Dia, IC Dia, Hyatt Glob, Accor Pt
Posts: 4,723
Oh, wait. . . Of course they would!