bdschobel

I generally agree. My youngest child is 14 right now, and he can take care of himself, but when my kids were younger, I would step in quickly and tell other adults to speak to me, not my child. I did this many times with TSA employees. These parents should have done the same.

Bruce

n4zhg

Great way to lose your flight that day, and for the rest of your life. Being on the no-fly list sucks. Spending two years in Supermax Federal Prison sucks worse.

n4zhg

No, he knows that if he confronts the TSO, he's going to end up on the no-fly list, or PMITA Federal Prison. Then he'd really have to turn in his man card for the duration.

This is what a police state feels like, people. Get used to it.

HSVTSO Dean

Because then I could then say that it was either SSI, or take the "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of said policy" route.

Think about it.

Hmm. Assuming that there is a policy of questioning people six years of age or younger — we're also assuming that there's a legitimate need to do this; somebody once suggested on our IdeaFactory that, in order to help stop kidnappings and such, we should require proof-of-parentage for anyone traveling with a child under 12. That wouldn't be considered a legitimate need for it: the SSI rules govern only what should be protected to keep the system relatively free from our adversary's knowledge. I'm fairly certain that the theory goes, if they want to know badly enough, let them spend their dime making dry run after dry run to narrow things down~ So let us assume that... there's a credible and specific threat about little people being strapped with explosives targeting commercial aviation — then yeah, it'd be classified as SSI.

In so far as the PR disaster goes, though? To be honest, I'm not sure how the PR department for TSA thinks. There are things that aren't SSI that would smooth over relations quite nicely, that they just don't seem to want to talk about. Look at the TDC procedures, for instance. About three or four weeks after they were first revised, they changed to be not quite as stringent (I believe it was the "Top Ten Question" #2 that this is relevant to). It would've been an easy announcement, but they totally and completely ignored it, and kept up all this animosity that was just totally and completely unnecessary, and opted instead for some kind of lame... "quasi-answer." It was sickening. And it also wasn't SSI. There wasn't a reason on this planet they couldn't have just said what was what.

And then, on the other hand, I've also seen the PR department go to great lengths to get actual SSI stuff cleared by Kip to allow the public on the Blog to see or read something. The MMW images, for one (the display or screen results of any kind of our screening equipment is, in a blanket, classified as SSI), and the more recent ">$10K" directive (almost any management/security/operational directive that the TSA operates under, with the exception of the one that constitutes our dress code and uniform requirements, are also SSI).

Now, granted, these things take time to get the SSI classification lifted on, and in that time frame everyone over on the Blog is just getting more and more hateful and zealous. Bob doesn't have a red phone on his desk that calls Kip Hawley directly, but you'd think, at the very least, he could say, "Hey, guys, I'm working on it, gimme a week or two, yeah?"

But, then again, that might be counterproductive.

Argh. When faced with the Department of Public Affairs and Strategic Communications, I'm glad I'm just a line-flunky at a small airport.

HSVTSO Dean

Actually, ignoring the fact that he calls us federal law-enforcement officers, it doesn't seem that he knows that.

For the record: Yes, physically assaulting a TSO while they're in uniform and on the checkpoint qualifies as a Very Bad Thing™.

Lumpy

For the record, let's take it one step closer to the shining light, HSVTSO: in the presence of any TSO a PAX has NO recourse except to do as he is told.

Ought to scare the hell out of ANY sane American, most especially a parent.

Trollkiller

Stop that. A PAX has plenty of recourse in the presence of a TSO. You can call a supervisor, call a cop or walk away.

The decision to be a parent may cause you some inconvenience and may cost you some money. Too bad, that is one of the hazards of that responsibility.

Lumpy

Yes, and also in the Land of Oz America STILL exists in our airports, and you may NOT be arrested or detained or kept from flying for irritating the guards or calling the police on them. See, CP coercion is all a big myth.

You may also lie to your children as a parent to facilitate your travel by telling them all uniformed people are nice folks deep inside, trying to help them get home more easily. And you may be able to choke down your gag reflex when some uninitiated and naive soul begins to lecture you on parental responsibility in the middle of your child getting a public shakedown.

And that's inconvenient, too.

Unbelievable.

Trollkiller

You may be arrested but that is a small price to pay to protect your child. You may be arrested for protecting your freedom but that is also a small price to pay.

oneofthosepeopleyouloveto hate

No doubt!

Many moons ago, I was the PR director for an operation that (at the time) was grossing in excess of $200 million a year.

So I know a little about this line of work ... and I wouldn't touch the TSA with a 10-foot pole!

Too many screeners out there with the potential to do wacky things ...

And, yeah, some screeners are inordinately concerned with the possibility of children being kidnapped. No doubt these flames have been fanned by the fact the TSA appears to have thwarted a recent attempt to kidnap a woman in, I believe, California. But giving kids the third-degree is hardly official policy!

I've seen TSOs who attempt to match each child to a name on a boarding pass. Personally, I don't bother. If there are 2 kids, and 2 boarding passes besides the parents', well, that's all I need to know!

Best to get the little darlings through as quickly as possible, before they start crying.

iluv2fly

And there is nothing stranger than the TSA...

Boggie Dog

Why would a directive making $10K cash contraband be SSI? How could knowledge of that information hurt aviation safety?

The problem with TSA is that almost everything has been marked SSI.

That tells me and the rest of the American citizens that TSA and its procedures cannot stand the light of day. Hence the problems and complaints of secret rules, connection to police state tactics and groups such as the Stasi.

I don't think everything TSA does should be in some publication at my local library. Just those things I must know to get through a checkpoint at any airport on any day. Has TSA provided that information? You know the answer is a big fat NO!

With just a little common sense the suits at TSA should have foreseen the problems they were building with such policies and with even less common sense should see that corrective action is now needed.

If TSA has a public affairs/relations staff they sure are over paid!

HSVTSO Dean

Because...

You answered your own question.

N965VJ

Come to think of it, a nosey TSO *is* about as annoying as dealing with a used car salesman.

goalie

and that's the biggest baloney sandwich out there. no offense, but hiding behind "national s'kewrity" because you a) either don't know the answer to the question asked or b) referring to something as ssi sounds good and most sheeple will accept it. there are plenty of legitimate things which rightly so should be considered classified and/or ssi but let's get real folks