ID Update and Word on the Blog
June 27th Update to ID Requirements:
Now that the new ID requirement is almost one week old, we wanted to provide additional stats. Below are the latest numbers:
Saturday, June 21-Wednesday, June 25:
Total flyers: Approximately 10 million
Flyers without ID: 1705 (.000017 of total flyers)
Flyers denied access: 59 (.000005 of total passengers)
Average wait time for identity verification or decision: 6.9 minutes
And an editorial comment:
A few bloggers have asked us where we are and why we have not responded to questions. Questions like:
“Do these questions being to make you realize why TSA is a joke?”
“Of what are you so afraid that you refuse to address this issue?”
“Unless you are just going to turn the blog iinto (sic) a carnival or circus?”
That last one brings us to an interesting point. As Kip wrote in the opening post of this blog on January 30th, “Our ambition is to provide here a forum for a lively, open discussion of TSA issues… Our hosts…job is to engage with you straight-up and take it from there.”
I think we can all agree that comments like:
“I am just waiting for Kip to mutter "I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids."
“My tinfoil hat theory is that the TSA knows it doesn't and have given up any pretense of spin control.”
“I agree -- more TSA crap. The sooner y'all are simply arrested for violating our rights, the happier I'll be.”
don’t really bring anything to the larger debate and really don’t beg for nor want a response.
The simple truth is that we’re just about the only government agency engaging in this type of dialogue on security issues and policies and we’re sincerely interested in rational debate and conversation...but we have neither the time nor the desire to respond to random, vitriol filled diatribes that don’t serve passengers or other bloggers in any way.
We’ve used this blog as a method of change and hope we have proven its merit on several occasions (ending the electronics problem in Hooray Bloggers, Diamond Lanes, etc.). These posts and the bloggers' comments have had a positive impact on your experience and mine at the checkpoint. We’re more than willing to engage in a vigorous debate on controversial issues and look forward to many more spirited debates without the poison for poison’s sake.
We’ve certainly proven over the past seven months that we can take a punch but the constant barrage of body (and low) blows without substance would tire even Mike Tyson in his heyday.
Christopher
EOS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Christopher at
5:50 PM
129 Comments:
Oh, oh seems we have hit a raw nerve! Two thumbs up!
June 27, 2008 6:03 PM
re: "As Kip wrote in the opening post of this blog on January 30th, “Our ambition is to provide here a forum for a lively, open discussion of TSA issues…"
Any number of questions, most valid, have been raised regarding the ID issue.
No one at TSA has engaged or discussed.
We have been told, but that is a one way street.
The ID policy is wrong, violates civil rights and is not part of the law that is laid out in 49 C.F.R. § 1540.
So please lets discuss this and tell us were the authority lies to implement this disgraceful policy.
June 27, 2008 6:13 PM
Thank you Christopher for your response here. I'm sure the low blows will keep up but at least you blog folks are trying. Explaining the ID requirement to folks that just do not get it and still think security is about keeping bad things instead of bad people off planes is what we are working with. It's been explained that someone can use their body parts as a weapon to no avail. Ink pens or belts could also be used. There is no limit to what someone with ill intentions can use to harm others, so it makes so much more sense to try to locate those with ill intentions and keep them off the planes as an added layer of security to keeping the innocent knife and gun carrying passengers from bringing them on.
June 27, 2008 6:16 PM
Although I do agree that not answering some of the questions posted makes sense, there are some questions that are perfectly relevant that you haven't answered:
1. How can requiring ID fit within our constitutional rights?
2. What happened to those 59 persons denied flight?
3. How does checking ID make us safer?
4. How are the watch lists being improved? How did they come together in the first place?
June 27, 2008 6:17 PM
And yet, you still avoid answering any of the real and valid questions!
June 27, 2008 6:24 PM
What is your take on the the mother and autistic child who were denied re-boarding during a flight? Is this an ADA issue, a problem passenger issue, or something altogether different? According to the report, the child was tolerated on the first leg of the trip, and then denied passage on the connecting flight.
June 27, 2008 6:25 PM
"The simple truth is that we’re just about the only government agency engaging in this type of dialogue"
which part?
the blog or publishing their rules and regulations? Because one is much much more important than the other.Now lets go back to your previous entry/policy introdcution that you still haven't provided legal jurisdiction for after already having been told you couldn't do this by a federal court.
June 27, 2008 6:34 PM
Christopher, you picked a handful of inflammatory comments that were posted after repeated attempts to engage TSA in discussion of this inexcusable policy of punishing those who wish to stand up for our rights, and completely ignored a multitude of reasonable comments.
If you want us not to judge the entire TSA organization by the actions of a few yahoos, please don't use the comments of a few justifiably-frustrated commenters as reason to shut down communications.
As for the reasonable comments, I don't have time to dig through them all right now, but off the top of my head, Trollkiller has repeatedly asked for followup on your associates' assertion that "49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 & 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) allow for this new requirement for granting access to the sterile areas". You have completely ignored it.
Additionally, you have yet to explain how you have a list of people who are so dangerous that they should not be allowed to travel within the country by commercial airline or should only be allowed to travel after being hassled by government agents at a checkpoint, but who we choose not to charge with any crime.
So please, drop the P.R. tactics and talk about this.
June 27, 2008 6:35 PM
If you want the blows to be of substance answer a few basic questions.
Trollkiller's legal question with regards to Gilmore as a precedent is a good place to start.
Or my question about REAL ID (not just ID but REAL ID and those states that have refused it) would also be a good place to go next.
June 27, 2008 6:36 PM
NoClu wrote:
"in the second 48 hours how many citizens were hastled/detained because they didn't have their ID. How many were ultimately refused entry into the secure area? Any arrested because they were dangerous?"
I'd really appreciate you adding this statistic to your "Week at a glance" web-page."
That's a reasonable question.
June 27, 2008 6:38 PM
I wrote:
"How are you improving security by stopping people at a government checkpoint, then preventing them from passing your checkpoint simply because they assert their right to travel without first showing you their papers?"
That's a reasonable question.
June 27, 2008 6:39 PM
Actually I sincerely resent the insinuation that questions such as the one Trollkiller asks about Gilmore or the one I ask about REAL ID are without substance. I think you owe several of the commentators an apology. Winson, Wintermute, Trollkiller, and I are all determined participants who do more than simply tell you how bad you are.
We prove it.
June 27, 2008 6:42 PM
It is profoundly dishonest and disingenuous to pretend that the only questions asked in the comments below are ones like those you've cherry-picked.
As anyone who reads those comments can see, there were many substantive questions about the underlying assumptions of the new ID policy, its impact on travelers (ie, average time tells us nothing -- what were the longest and shortest interrogation times?), the unacceptability of interrogating citizens about their political beliefs, the time wasted on all sides under the new policy, the risk of identity theft posed by the apparent use of credit reports to verify identity, and many more.
Perhaps when TSA starts to show a glimmer of responsiveness to legitimate and fundamental questions about its policies -- policies which patently do nothing to make anyone safer, and continue to encroach on the rights of citizens while failing to increase security -- we will be less frustrated and angry when trying, and failing, to get answers from you people.
You might want to think about making an honest effort at answering the questions we asked below instead of whining "poor poor pitiful me."
June 27, 2008 6:49 PM
Christopher (or whomever) ... in the spirit of trying to restore civil tone, let me ask a respectful question about ID checking:
How does verifying a passenger's identity (either by presentation of ID or alternative procedures) increase security? Knowing a passenger's name doesn't tell you anything about his/her intentions. (Especially since the TSOs doing the identity checking don't have access to the various no-fly lists, nor the means to authenticate the passenger's boarding pass.)
June 27, 2008 6:50 PM
Tomas wrote:
"OK, as an old veteran who fought to protect our rights, this actually does bother me, Bob.
"It is not that I have a problem identifying myself, and even showing identification for a reasonable purpose, it's that the convoluted and warped logic being used just doesn't hold together.
"Please allow me to provide to scenarios: One where a person has valid ID but objects to a demand of "Papers please." The other being a person with no ID who claims the dog ate it.
"You will do some 'validations' on the 'no ID' person, and possibly subject them to some extra scrutiny, and if nothing further bothers the TSOs, it's "have a nice flight!"
"With the person saying "I'd rather not" when asked for their ID, what is the first thing you will probably find if you were to subject them to extra security checks? Right! Their ID! Duh!
"So, why not just accept the idea that not all people are sheep, and that some of us actually believe in, and risked our lives to protect, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
"If someone tells you they would rather not show you ID because they feel you have approximately zero right to demand it, treat them exactly the same as someone who said their dog ate their ID: Question them to verify identity, validate what they say, and go through what they are carrying on-board - which likely includes their ID.
"I totally fail to understand the TSA's insistence on treating those WITH good ID who object to the «Papiere, bitte!» scenario worse than those who simply pack their forged IDs, or mail them ahead, and claim they don't have any.
"Treat both the same. There is NO advantage to denying boarding to someone who objects to having their papers demanded to travel other than to cow the general populace and to accustom them to following any demand from anyone in uniform without thinking and without questioning.
"This is NOT the United States of America I fought so long ago to protect.
"Those young men under me who did not return would not believe what this once fine country has turned into."
That's reasonable and respectful. Would you care to address any of Tomas' concerns?
June 27, 2008 6:53 PM
We’ve certainly proven over the past seven months that we can take a punch but the constant barrage of body (and low) blows without substance would tire even Mike Tyson in his heyday.
Quite frankly, Christopher, some of that is your own fault.
There have been many legitimate questions asked that get 1) ignored, 2) not answered, 3) declared unanswerable because the answer is state secret or 4) they can't be answered because Kip or Bob or TSA Blogger X is on vacation.
So, in the spirit of fairness, I will put you and the TSA team to the test as to whether or not this post is just CYA or you really want to interacted with us.
Please answer the following five questions:
1. If requiring ID is truly instrumental in keeping the flying public safe, why did it take the TSA until June of 2008 to institute that policy?
2. What will the TSA due if a majority of the states refuse to issue READ ID cards to their respective citizens?
3. In general, what disciplinary action will be taken against a TSO who asks someone questions regarding their religion or political beliefs in order to verify their identity?
4. If the TSA believes that 1) checking ID increases safety to the flying public and 2) the no-fly list is there to catch terrorists, then why are the TSOs that check IDs at the airport not comparing names to those on the no-fly list?
5. Since it has been claimed by the TSA that the 3-1-1 rule was implemented due to the circumstances surrounding the London bomb plot, what position will the TSA take if the defendants are found not-guilty?
I await your answers.
June 27, 2008 6:55 PM
T-the-B wrote:
"consider this: Scenario 1) I arrive at the airport without my ID and tell you that I mistakenly left it at home. According to your post you will question me and give me a secondary screening and let me fly. Scenario 2) I arrive at the airport without my ID and tell you that I deliberately left it at home. According to your post you will not let me fly. In both scenarios the passenger is the same; the lack of ID is the same. The only difference is whether or not I acknowledge your right to demand my ID or assert my right to refuse to show it.
"Secondly, you claim that this policy is intended to keep dangerous people off airplanes; however, the ID checker has no list to compare against. All the checker has is an ID and a boarding pass. Anyone with a PC and Photoshop can produce a valid boarding pass with anyone's name one it and the ID checker will be none the wiser."
Good points. I'd say they bring something to the larger debate and deserve a response.
June 27, 2008 6:57 PM
Jim Huggins wrote:
"Sterling,
"Again, it's still easy to game this system. Mr. Bad Terrorist can produce a fake boarding pass with their own ID and get through the checkpoint, then use a boarding pass issued in someone else's name (presumably someone not on the no-fly list) to board an aircraft. Since you're not validating the legitimacy of the boarding pass, and you're not checking the no-fly list at the time of the document check, this threat still exists."
Nothing wrong with that. No response Sterling or anyone else at TSA.
June 27, 2008 6:59 PM
How is the 6.9 minutes tracked? Is that 6.9 minutes after waiting an hour in the security line? How much does the ID verification slow down the line for the rest of the passengers?
Can we please commercialize the TSA and get some competition going between companies to help streamline this process? It's easy to do a bad job and not care when you can't be fired or edged out.
June 27, 2008 7:07 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Thank you for finally showing numbers, albeit this is the kind of situation in which they will always favor the TSA (after all people want to fly).
"Could you please elaborate on those approximately 20 persons that weren´t allowed to fly?"
Well?
June 27, 2008 7:25 PM
Chris Boyce wrote:
"Where is the privacy impact assessment for the new form and the obviously commercial datamining check? I don't recall seeing it on line, nor do I remember a public comment period."
Another reasonable question.
June 27, 2008 7:28 PM
Thrilling. But, you still have not responded directly via a blog post to ANY comments left behind. Yes, some people visit just to post "we hit a nerve!" but many, many others have left thoughtful, well written comments with serious concerns and questions, and these have never been addressed.
For example, how does checking ID increase security? All this has done is prevent 59 people from making their flights. The odds of this ID checking to actually catch a real, live terrorist is 0. Unless said terrorist is a really, really bad liar.
But you won't directly answer the public's honest concerns over your actions. Instead, you ignore, side step and refuse to apologize for forcing a girl to rip out her nipple rings. This isn't a blog, it's a PR stunt. I've read the comments. I've seen some very good concerns raised and I don't see the TSA addressing these concerns.
Until you begin answering the comments of those who follow your RSS feed, this blog will prove to be little more than another government joke.
Q: Why did the TSA write a blog?
A: To stop terrorists. *rimshot*
Thanks anyways.
June 27, 2008 7:28 PM
Bravo, TSA! Bravo!
You truly have mastered the art of propaganda. Cherry pick the statements that are showing frustration with a lack of response to try to discredit your critics as raving lunatics. All the while trying to make your organization like it's on the high road and is an innocent martyr.
I think a lot of the postings here show furstration and rightfully so. I also think those posters have an absolute right to call TSA to the carpet on this and show their disgust with this and other policies.
I've asked a lot of questions on here and posted a lot of comment on here ... about have of which hasn't been posted. So when you can cherry pick the comments and not post a lot of valid questions, it's easy to make your critics look bad.
What happened to those 59 people denied boarding? Were they arrested? Were they asked any invasive questions like party affiliation, what they thought of the presidential candidates, or why they belong to their chosen religion? Other DHS offices have asked these questions and considering some of what TSA have asked, it's certainly plausible these are some that are being asked. Can you confirm or deny?
Honestly, if you're trying to show that you're encouraging dialogue ... this last week has been a very poor example.
The fact of the matter is that there isn't a lot of real dialogue. Nothing's changed. For the better anyway. You dictate, we respond, you poo poo what we say and go on. What's really the point to this blog?
How come you haven't had Francine or any other legal eagles weigh in on this? Was this purposely implemented just before the 4th of July when a lot of government employees would be on vacation so these questions would NOT have to be dealt with?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Robert
June 27, 2008 7:38 PM
Quote from Anonymous: Thank you Christopher for your response here. I'm sure the low blows will keep up but at least you blog folks are trying. Explaining the ID requirement to folks that just do not get it and still think security is about keeping bad things instead of bad people off planes is what we are working with. It's been explained that someone can use their body parts as a weapon to no avail. Ink pens or belts could also be used. There is no limit to what someone with ill intentions can use to harm others, so it makes so much more sense to try to locate those with ill intentions and keep them off the planes as an added layer of security to keeping the innocent knife and gun carrying passengers from bringing them on."
How can you tell what anyone's intentions are without mind reading or looking into a crystal ball? Furthermore, how does looking at someone's ID verify good or bad intentions? TSA's never answered this.
Because "harm" can be caused by people and things, should we be carded, stripped naked, and fly while bound to eliminate the risk of a person with "bad intentions" doing anything? If he's tied up, he can't do anything. And even if he broke free, he wouldn't have anything to use ...
Robert
June 27, 2008 7:59 PM
Responding to Kip Hawley's statement:
"It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."
Bob Eucher asked three reasonable questions:
1. And we should believe you?
2. What guarantee do we have that it will NEVER be repeated?
3. And most important, What will happen if it does happen again?
June 27, 2008 8:26 PM
Robert Johnson wrote:
"So 20 people were denied boarding because they wouldn't show an ID. How many of those were arrested? I'm guessing 0 ... else TSA would have been trumpeting it as a success rather than being thrown into damage control by asking someone his political affiliation.
"How many of these people were so dangerous that they couldn't be allowed to board a plane yet not dangerous enough to be arrested? Again, I'm guessing 0."
TSA: Can you address this? I wouldn't call it a low-blow.
June 27, 2008 9:00 PM
Andy wrote:
"Question 1: You repeatedly claim this helps improve no-fly list enforcement. As we have told you over and over again, the ID checkers aren't checking names against a list. They're just comparing the name against the boarding pass, and the face to the ID. So, how exactly does this new policy enhance the NFL enforcement?
"Question 2: What exactly was wrong with the old policy (claim you have no ID, you get a SSSS and you're on your way)? We technically can still do that, and remember when there's a will, there's a way. There's no such thing as perfect security.
"Question 3: Why are you targeting those who simply refuse to show ID? Some people refuse to show ID because of: identify theft concerns; religious reasons; self-privacy reasons; and/or their own principle. We are free people here in the USA, and we have a right not to show ID. People can lie and say they lost their ID, and get by, but those truly wanting to stand up for their rights will be punished. Is there a political connection to this? I think it's blatantly obvious what your purpose is here, TSA.
"Well, I hope you at least have the courtesy to answer my questions (and others, too)."
I've seen no answers to these reasonable questions. I'd say they "bring something to the larger debate" and deserve responses.
June 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Someone anonymously asked:
"Is Sterling a guest blogger from the legal department or some other office?
"Secondly, of the people who have not been allowed to gain access to the secure area of the airport and prevented from their travels how many were arrested and charged with a crime.
"What court determined that they could not travel freely and associate freely as our constitution provides for? What court restricted their civil rights?
"When did TSA become Judge and Jury and Executioner?"
Good questions, though they're somewhat rhetorical. All were seemingly ignored by TSA.
June 27, 2008 9:29 PM
Abelard asked these two questions:
"How does showing ID keep me safe from an attack? No one seems to be able to answer that question."
"If I have been scanned, searched and screened and have no bombs, knives, guns or 4 oz. bottles of Coppertone lotion, what difference does my identity make when I get on that plane?"
That sounds like it belongs in a "forum for a lively, open discussion of TSA issues."
June 27, 2008 9:33 PM
alright we'll make this easy on you guys, a comment not a question so no response needed (not that i would get one)
The TSA is far more dangerous to the United States of America than terrorists are or ever were.
June 27, 2008 9:34 PM
Chris, your blog post of today smacks of just so much whining. We are not buying your line of Bandini anymore; we're not accepting your non-answers anymore; and you are not happy with it. The house of cards is caving in on you and you can't find the door.
So many of us, particularly Trollkiller (hats off to you Sir for your fine work on this one) have been holding your collective feet to the fire for this ridiculous policy. So many of us in the past have demanded and continue to demand that you show us actual results for your continued violations of our civil rights. So far TSA has been able to show no credible evidence that it has prevented or has the capacity to prevent any kind of terrorist activity on any form of transportation (the fact that there have been no strikes against any US aircraft since 2001 is not credible evidence -- there were no strikes against US aircraft for years prior to 9/11 either).
The TSA has yet to prove its worth. The TSA cannot show that it has made the traveling public any safer than it was on September 10, 2001. For the billions of dollars we have spent on TSA's security theater, there are giant holes that have yet to be plugged (i.e. has the TSA come to a decision yet as to whether to screen all airport employees each and every time they enter and leave the sterile area of an airport? Why is it going to be at least not until 2010 until we know that we are flying on top of fully inspected cargo?) TSA leaves these barn doors wide open while concentrating on making a show of checkpoint screening to make the public think that the government is actually doing something. All the while, with each confiscated item; with each denied boarding for lack of proper id; for each missed flight for the incompetence of screeners faced with technology they don't understand or have never seen but which is clearly not a knife, gun or bomb; for the fear that the TSA instills in each passenger to speak up for fear of retailiation when all that poor person wants to do is get to where he or she is going; for each disabled person who is forced to find to strength to rise from a wheelchair and walk through the magnetometer; to electronic dragnets and virtual strip searches; the TSA has found and continues to find new and exciting ways to violate our Constitutional rights with each passing month. The checking of ID is simply one more of them.
Chris, Bob, and to the rest of the TSA, it's time to put up of shut up. Answer the many questions that have been put to you. Stop hiding behind SSI (which is a complete crock and you know it).
June 27, 2008 9:40 PM
Christopher, what is the cost-benefit analysis to spend all this effort to stop .000005 of total passengers, when red team tests are showing that .50 of would-be dangerous items are getting through the screening?
Wouldn't that be a better use of resources, as well as not trample the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States?
June 27, 2008 9:50 PM
"Now lets go back to your previous entry/policy introdcution that you still haven't provided legal jurisdiction for after already having been told you couldn't do this by a federal court."
BBEEEEPPP! BS DECTECTOR GOING OFF!
Please cite where this occured. A lionk would be nice. Thanks!
June 27, 2008 10:00 PM
We’ve certainly proven over the past seven months that we can take a punch but the constant barrage of body (and low) blows without substance would tire even Mike Tyson in his heyday.
Christopher
EOS Blog Team
...........................
The public are the ones who have taken the low blows.
TSA has engaged in a pattern of civil rights violations and continues to trample the constitution each and every day.
Now if you want to engage us, your employers, then step up and answer some fricken questions.
The way I see it, you and the TSA don't have anything coming!
June 27, 2008 10:02 PM
Christoper, you posted a controversial article 17 days ago! Then you pretty much disappeared.
Now you author a post that addresses statements that "really don’t beg for nor want a response."
Why did you not use your time and the space to address some of the very real concerns and issues your post and the last few posts have raised?
"job is to engage with you straight-up"
Can you tell us 'straight-up' that the last few posts were straight up? Doesn't the ID thing require changes in the system to work?
Are more procedural changes regarding ID or getting to the plane coming?
"job is to engage with you"
Dropping some posts and disappearing is not engaging.
“Unless you are just going to turn the blog iinto (sic) a carnival or circus?”
I didn't get the dancing ponies I was looking for today.
:>(
We didn't get the cat show someone else requested.
We definitely didn't get anything substantive addressed.
You know, the Friday posts really are not amusing any more.
Please bring back the IED jokes.
,>)
June 27, 2008 10:07 PM
another fluff piece.
yes there are some people out there that comment with some absurd things. and these are the ones you respond to?? all that will do is give more attention to these people.
instead, you could answer the true questions, that have been asked already here in the 27 comments before mine, but hey, i'll repeat them again, so maybe you can pick the most common one...
1) Since anyone can photoshop a boarding pass to match their ID, couldn't someone just buy a ticket under any old name, change their boarding pass, and then proceed through security, with their own, legit ID, since none of your employees are checking the boarding passes to see if a) they're legit, or b) if the person whose name is on it is on your "no fly" list?
2)What happens when someone truly forgets their ID, and the company you contract out with to verify has the wrong information?
3) How does this stop someone who is not a known terrorist?
4) Why, in their right mind, would a known terrorist use a legitimate ID to buy their ticket? Wouldn't they just get a good fake?
5) What if someone is a forgetful person...how many times can they have forgotten their ID??
June 27, 2008 10:09 PM
Assistant Secretary Hawley and "additional duty" TSA bloggers:
All of the posters before me onthis thread have responded in what I believe to be a rational manner. You simply have not addressed many of our concerns. We are the frequent flyers.
We are the ones who confront the "Constitution-Free Zones" that you have made at our airports, our train stations, our subway stations, and, yes, even our Greyhound stations.
We are the ones who sincerely wish we were making up the stories of the truly incompetent, irrational, illegal, or just plain stupid encounters we endure on a daily basis.
We are the ones who have served our beloved country, fought its wars (both just and unjust), have sworn to defend the Constitution -- not defend the TSA, Hawley, Chertoff, Bush, or anyone else -- and are physically sickened by what you have done. You have rubbed our noses in the Constitution.
Don't you people get it? Don't you people understand why so many of us are absolutely livid at you and everyone wearing a TSA uniform??
Your reaction to all of this is truly pathetic, embarrassing, and an utter disgrace to your oath and to the trust that, we, the people, have no other choice than to place in you.
Assistant Secretary Hawley, you are accountable for EVERYTHING your agency does and stands for. You came across as someone who will simply "Take my ball and go home."
Answer our real and valid complaints and our accusations of your agency's illegal and unconstitutional activities on a daily basis. If you don't want to answer or simply want to blow us off, be a LEADER and simply state this.
You OWE this to us.
June 27, 2008 10:45 PM
check your math. It should be 0.017%, about 1 out of every 5800 passengers face secondary screening.
June 27, 2008 10:50 PM
To the TSA bloggers.
You obviously have the upperhand, as you administer and moderate everything that is published here.
We admire your policy that allows posting of dissenting comments.
Yes, some posts are "low blows", but the majority appear to be from concerned citizens asking reasonable questions from an agency that our tax dollars support.
You are now in an excellent position to redeem yourself, and post each valid question, with an equally valid answer.
I have always been told, if you make a decision and feel that you are right, you should then have the courage to defend your decision. Your silence only reinforces that even the TSA knows that the decision they made is wrong, and there is no valid defense.
June 27, 2008 10:54 PM
Christopher:
Thank you for the extremely well thought out ad hominem personam response. Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to be able distract anyone by doing so.
Instead, any chance of you trying answering our questions?
June 28, 2008 12:59 AM
Christopher (and TSA), thank you for the good work on this blog. TSA is under no obligation to provide this blog, and they are also under no obligation to answer questions - even if they are serious and have merit - posted on a blog. I don't understand why all of these trolls (yes, all of you) continue to harass the poor TSA representatives who actually want to try to make their regulations transparent and understandable.
Do I understand the new policies? Not necessarily. Do I think that comments in a blog, even one that was created to open a dialogue, are the place to demand answers on this? Come on, folks. You think he can tell us what happened to those 59 flyers denied access? You think that he can change the policy if it is truly illegal (which I don't understand why it would be)? I looked up 49 C.F.R. § 1540. The new regulations don't contradict.
TSA has the upper hand on this one and has no obligation to answer your questions. I'm grateful for those questions they choose to answer, and they don't owe us any more than that. Perhaps you'd like to kvetch about the Patriot Act and the new, post 9/11 reality, but don't take all your frustration out on the TSA bloggers.
June 28, 2008 1:49 AM
I'm enjoying this now. You guys are finally starting to realize that you are losing the PR battle here - so now you start trying to insult your customers, who by the way are your EMPLOYERS.
My question for you not to answer is how many of the senior officials at DHS and TSA have to take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" - and when will they be held accountable for clearly violating that oath?
June 28, 2008 2:01 AM
Well it is nice to see at least something I wrote can get a response from the TSA.
It is also nice to know you read my email where I complimented the TSA Blog Team on the ability to take a punch.
You should have followed my advice in that email and made the Friday fun post about some of the heroes at the TSA like TSO Chris Harrington.
Sadly you did not wish to follow my advice. Instead you figured the best way to defend is to attack. Not a bad strategy in a war, the only problem this is not a war.
Time for a reality check Christopher, you work for us. Kip works for us. The whole of the TSA and for that matter the whole of the Government work for us.
Your BOSSES demand answers not piss-poor attempts to deflect the questions.
I have asked repeatedly about the legalities of forced ID checks to gain access to sterile areas when 49 C.F.R. § 1540 clearly forbids it by the limitations placed in 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5.
The response I was expecting was for Francine to chime in and explain that the blog team got it wrong and some other law allowed for the forced ID check.
I really thought that the TSA would have researched the law BEFORE implementing such a questionable procedure, especially in the light of the Gilmore ruling.
By the lack of response to my repeated question I see the TSA made an attempt to put forth a policy that is clearly illegal. Notice at this point I am not even questioning the Constitutionality of the forced ID check but rather the basic legality of it.
Christopher, I am still waiting on the vigorous debate on this issue, wait a second, strike that last part, I would settle for a proper explanation of the legality question I have repeatedly asked.
I realize the Blog Team is in a tough spot, you can't defend the forced ID check, if you could you guys would have already done so, you can't agree with the public or you are in trouble with your superiors at the TSA.
My advice is you kick my question upstairs. Get the lawyers involved.
One more piece of advice if I may, never compare yourself to a convicted rapist when you are trying to garner sympathy. Ask the sports minded in your office for a more acceptable example.
June 28, 2008 3:39 AM
Word of advice: Cease and desist. When TSOs become similarly frustrated by TSA's lack of response, they "voluntarily" move on...
June 28, 2008 5:16 AM
Maybe the TSA is the only government agency trying to communicate with the public because you know you are in trouble with us.
If you are trying to communicate, pleas answer our perfectly relevant questions.
June 28, 2008 7:53 AM
Thank you Christopher for your response here. I'm sure the low blows will keep up but at least you blog folks are trying. Explaining the ID requirement to folks that just do not get it and still think security is about keeping bad things instead of bad people off planes is what we are working with. It's been explained that someone can use their body parts as a weapon to no avail. Ink pens or belts could also be used. There is no limit to what someone with ill intentions can use to harm others, so it makes so much more sense to try to locate those with ill intentions and keep them off the planes as an added layer of security to keeping the innocent knife and gun carrying passengers from bringing them on.
What happens when TSA examines your documents? If the documents are a high quality fake then you go through the routine screening process. When you have valid documents you go through the screening process normally. The issue is when you refuse to do the 'papers please' routine. TSA retaliates against people who refuse to cooperate with security theater.
Please tell me how the document screener determines, with any accuracy who you really are. They can't. They don't check fingerprints, perform a DNA test, they don't do anything that would verify who you really are. They can't and you spout off about how TSA 'makes flying safe' - it doesn't except for keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off of the plane. Get real and stop drinking TSA's kool-aide.
June 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Christopher, what is the cost-benefit analysis to spend all this effort to stop .000005 of total passengers, when red team tests are showing that .50 of would-be dangerous items are getting through the screening?
Wouldn't that be a better use of resources, as well as not trample the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States?
It is much easier to target people who refuse to play the game of TSA screening than it is to actually keep dangerous items off of the aircraft. TSA security theater playing at an airport near you.
June 28, 2008 8:57 AM
Will the 59 innocent people denied access to the boarding area be compensated for their missed flights?
June 28, 2008 11:06 AM
While researching a few things for another post I cruised on over to the "Meet The Bloggers" page. I really should check that on a regular basis as there is some good news that Blogger Bob let sneak by.
Congratulations are in order for Blogger Bob's new baby girl due in August. Blogger Bob be sure to let us know when she makes her Blessed entrance. (It's okay to brag, we won't mind a bit.)
Speaking of kids, as I was writing this my 9 year old daughter asks me "Who are you destroying today?". She knows me so well. Rest assured there is no destruction in this post.
More congratulations are in order for Blogger Bob as he has been promoted to a Program Analyst with the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs. I am not sure what a PA with the OSCPA is but it sounds exciting.
I guess we now know what has been keeping Blogger Bob so busy. It is nice to see one of the good guys moving up.
June 28, 2008 2:56 PM
Way back in February in this "In The Loop" article, Christopher put forth the following:
But after a while, everyone calmed down, White said, and there has been a "great shift to legitimate questions." It's not useful to post or to respond to comments such as "I hate you with every fiber of my being" or "you are idiots," he said, but if posters write "you are idiots and here's why," TSA will respond and "we'll run that all day" on the blog.
I'm sorry Christopher I did not know there was such an exact procedure involved to get a response to a question. I will try it your way.
You are idiots and here's why, 49 C.F.R. § 1540. the law you cite as giving the TSA authority and right to demand ID as a condition of granting access to a sterile area in fact restricts the TSA to screening for weapons, explosives and incendiaries as the ONLY criteria for access to the sterile areas.
How does the TSA justify the new forced ID requirement when 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 forbids it?
How can the TSA claim that the new forced ID check is legal when clearly by my reading of 49 C.F.R. § 1540 it is not?
Hopefully you will finally answer these and other important and valid questions without requiring the idiot comment to proceed them.
June 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Question:
what is the arguement for introducing new policies when current policies are shown to fail regularly in testing. Why not fix the holes in current policies and then evaluate wether more is necessary?
June 28, 2008 5:40 PM
Day 2: Still no response from the cowards at the TSA regarding the above comments on Christopher's blog post.
June 28, 2008 6:23 PM
> Now that the new ID requirement is almost one week old
Well, given I have no clue what this new requirement is means your PR department leaves something to be desired....
June 28, 2008 7:45 PM
"So far TSA has been able to show no credible evidence that it has prevented or has the capacity to prevent any kind of terrorist activity on any form of transportation (the fact that there have been no strikes against any US aircraft since 2001 is not credible evidence -- there were no strikes against US aircraft for years prior to 9/11 either).
The TSA has yet to prove its worth. The TSA cannot show that it has made the traveling public any safer than it was on September 10, 2001. For the billions of dollars we have spent on TSA's security theater, there are giant holes that have yet to be plugged (i.e. has the TSA come to a decision yet as to whether to screen all airport employees each and every time they enter and leave the sterile area of an airport? Why is it going to be at least not until 2010 until we know that we are flying on top of fully inspected cargo?) TSA leaves these barn doors wide open while concentrating on making a show of checkpoint screening to make the public think that the government is actually doing something."
Kudos to WinstonSmith for hitting the nail directly on its head.
The 9/11 attacks did NOT succeed because of lax gate security. They succeeded because of the airline policy in existence at that time that forbid airline crews from resisting a hijacking.
June 28, 2008 7:46 PM
In Mike Tyson terms (as was used in the orginal post), what does Mike Tyson do when he sees he's losing? He bites an ear. Looks like TSA's attempt to discredit critics is an act of desperation akin to biting an ear.
Robert
June 28, 2008 8:03 PM
T. said...
Do I understand the new policies? Not necessarily. Do I think that comments in a blog, even one that was created to open a dialogue, are the place to demand answers on this? Come on, folks. You think he can tell us what happened to those 59 flyers denied access? You think that he can change the policy if it is truly illegal (which I don't understand why it would be)? I looked up 49 C.F.R. § 1540. The new regulations don't contradict.
Either you skipped over 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 or you don't understand the law. Maybe I can help you out.
When laws are written they are either written very broad or very narrow. Without 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 the two sections the TSA cites would allow for a forced ID check as a condition of granting access to a sterile area. Be sure to read carefully and note the words "screening" and "sterile area".
49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
top
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
Here is where the contradiction comes in. This is the part that causes the forced ID checks, as a condition of granting access to a sterile area, to be illegal.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
As I am sure you can see now the definition of screening limits what that screening can be for. Law definitions are just as binding as the rest of the law they define. The definition for screening area reinforces the limits of the screening.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
Now take a quick scroll back up to the section the TSA cites as the section of law that gives them the legal right to use ID as a condition of entry to a sterile area.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
Did you see where the definition of a sterile area also included the criteria for granting access to the sterile area?
That criteria is a screening of persons and property. A screening as we know is the inspection for weapons, explosives and incendiaries. Note that nowhere in the law have I found any mention of ID as a criteria for entering a sterile area as defined by 49 C.F.R. § 1540.
If you or anybody can point me to the section that allows the TSA to legally use a forced ID check as a condition for granting access to a sterile area, please please please point me to it.
I have looked at every law I can think of, heck I even looked at both the Aviation Transportation System Security Plan (3/26/07) and the National Strategy for Aviation Security (3/26/07). I can't find one thing that supports their assertion that the ID checks are legal.
June 29, 2008 4:20 AM
"you are idiots and here's why," TSA will respond and "we'll run that all day" on the blog.
Respond? Hahahahahahahaha^1000. Face it you don't respond with anything that even begins to address many of the questions people have posted here. We get ignored, blown off, patted on the head and told to go away kid, ya bother me. You agency lacks accountability and by its actions considers itself above the law.
A poster called you cowards for failing to respond. Cowards is a good word elitist is another one. Traitor is another one. Sellout is another one. Dismal failure are a couple more words describing your lack of response to the American public.
You can get away with some of this with folks who rarely travel and are uneducated as to what are real security measures. Frequent travelers who've experienced real security measure see through the theater and the outrages foisted upon the public.
June 29, 2008 8:39 AM
Quote from T: Christopher (and TSA), thank you for the good work on this blog. TSA is under no obligation to provide this blog, and they are also under no obligation to answer questions - even if they are serious and have merit - posted on a blog. I don't understand why all of these trolls (yes, all of you) continue to harass the poor TSA representatives who actually want to try to make their regulations transparent and understandable."
Wow. An ad hominem. Adds a lot to your argument.
Who's getting harassed? It's us. EVERY TIME we go to the airport. Simply because we have the audacity to buy a ticket and want to travel.
Calling someone to the carpet on something illegal and unconstitutional isn't being a troll. It's being a reponsible citizen and not being a sheep.
Yes, TSA is under an obligation to explain itself. Especially when it's trying to pull something like this.
"Do I understand the new policies? Not necessarily. Do I think that comments in a blog, even one that was created to open a dialogue, are the place to demand answers on this? Come on, folks."
Then where would you suggest asking these questions? Call TSA? You get a boiler plate response and a promise to call back that's never kept. Write them? Same thing ... they can't even show that they've read the complaint let alone understand it. At the airport? TSO's probably don't know and can't explain it and a lot of them make up their own rules anyway.
No, this is EXACTLY the place to ask these questions.
"You think he can tell us what happened to those 59 flyers denied access?"
Why not? They trumpet every time they bust someone with a fake ID, deliver a baby, and catch some illegal immigrant. Why can't they tell us that X of those 59 people were arrested and charged with Y, Z, etc. That can be done without violating privacy law (not that TSA cares about that).
"You think that he can change the policy if it is truly illegal (which I don't understand why it would be)? I looked up 49 C.F.R. § 1540. The new regulations don't contradict."
Trollkiller already explained why it's bad. I'm not going there.
No one's asking Christopher or any blog member to change the policy. What we're asking is to get their legal eagles here to defend it and answer the questions we've been asking. I don't think that's too much. I'd like for TSA for just once to say "we were wrong and we overreacted."
In the security industry at the government, bureaucracies never met a threat they didn't like. And once something's in place, it's very difficult to get it changed. Fortunately, we have courts to help with that.
"TSA has the upper hand on this one and has no obligation to answer your questions. I'm grateful for those questions they choose to answer, and they don't owe us any more than that."
Actually, they do. They're a public agency making public policy and even have to abide by the law for public comment in various proceedings. TSA created this blog to answer such questions and now decided not to. They are a public agency. They owe the public the answers for the questions they ask. SSI isn't a valid answer most of the time because it's overused. DHS has the worst track record for overclassifying anyway.
"Perhaps you'd like to kvetch about the Patriot Act and the new, post 9/11 reality, but don't take all your frustration out on the TSA bloggers."
I would, but those are discussions for other times and places and as such are a red herring to this discussion.
If the new post 9/11 reality is that we kow tow to the government and give up our freedoms, I'll make a stink about it. And honestly, I think that any citizen who loves freedom should too. They'd sit here and criticize oppresive regimes like China, former Soviet block, and such while praising the exact same measures here thatthose governments did there. TSA is just a manifestation of that control, demanind papers to travel.
Robert
June 29, 2008 10:03 AM
Trollkiller, your only contention then, is that the absence of any mention specically allowing for and ID check effectively prohibits them? Am I understanding you correctly? This seems to be a stretch.
June 29, 2008 12:51 PM
Well said!!!
June 29, 2008 1:47 PM
“TrollKiller: Do I understand the new policies? Not necessarily. Do I think that comments in a blog, even one that was created to open a dialogue, are the place to demand answers on this? Come on, folks. You think he can tell us what happened to those 59 flyers denied access? You think that he can change the policy if it is truly illegal (which I don't understand why it would be)? I looked up 49 C.F.R. § 1540. The new regulations don't contradict.
Either you skipped over 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 or you don't understand the law. Maybe I can help you out.
When laws are written they are either written very broad or very narrow. Without 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 the two sections the TSA cites would allow for a forced ID check as a condition of granting access to a sterile area. Be sure to read carefully and note the words "screening" and "sterile area".
49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
top
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
Here is where the contradiction comes in. This is the part that causes the forced ID checks, as a condition of granting access to a sterile area, to be illegal.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property FOR weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
As I am sure you can see now the definition of screening limits what that screening can be for. Law definitions are just as binding as the rest of the law they define. The definition for screening area reinforces the limits of the screening.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening location means each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presence of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
Now take a quick scroll back up to the section the TSA cites as the section of law that gives them the legal right to use ID as a condition of entry to a sterile area.
49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property.
Did you see where the definition of a sterile area also included the criteria for granting access to the sterile area?
That criteria is a screening of persons and property. A screening as we know is the inspection for weapons, explosives and incendiaries. Note that nowhere in the law have I found any mention of ID as a criteria for entering a sterile area as defined by 49 C.F.R. § 1540.
If you or anybody can point me to the section that allows the TSA to legally use a forced ID check as a condition for granting access to a sterile area, please please please point me to it.
I have looked at every law I can think of, heck I even looked at both the Aviation Transportation System Security Plan (3/26/07) and the National Strategy for Aviation Security (3/26/07). I can't find one thing that supports their assertion that the ID checks are legal.”
Here is your response: The fact YOU or ANYONE else knows my duties better than myself is absurd. My duties have changed since June 21st 2008 and now required to add this task to all the others. Please look below.
Title 49: Transportation
PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES
Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons
§ 1540.109 Prohibition against interference with screening personnel.
No person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties under this subchapter.
Title 49: Transportation
PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES
Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(1) Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
So, this task is now a part of my duties. Hope you understand.
June 29, 2008 6:38 PM
Here's a civil question. TSA got authority from Congress and the courts to "screen" people for weapons and explosives. TSA's authority to skate past the Fourth Amendment and search people without warrants and without individualized suspicion rests on this limitation to weapon/explosive searches.
When and how did TSA get any authority to screen people and prevent them from traveling because they are carrying innocuous substances such as water or shampoo? Or to limit the quantities of innocuous substances that citizens or visitors can carry? Water is neither a weapon nor an explosive.
June 29, 2008 8:52 PM
I think we can definitely agree that certain comments serve no purpose in the wider discussion. In fact they hurt our case as shown here because you concentrate on those instead of real issues.
However, not adressing these problems hurts even more because of what it looks like.
Appearances are far more powerful than you might believe. If yo udon't adress the real, solid, polite, and well formed legal questions regarding this, especially while hiding behind the anger that comes FROM you not responding, then what are we to do?Why have yo unot responded?
June 29, 2008 9:08 PM