USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

TSA Outside of the Airport

Archived Content

Please note that older content is archived for public record. This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.

If you have questions about policies or procedures, please contact the TSA Contact Center.

Members of the news media may contact TSA Public Affairs.

Friday, December 19, 2008
coast guard

Next month I will celebrate my 7th anniversary with TSA and the one constant over these past years has been the added elements of responsibility. What started as concentration on aviation security after the attacks of 9/11 has evolved into a web of security tools and partnerships that span all modes of transportation, local and state governments and stakeholders near and far.

While this may be seen as a “puppy post” by some, I thought it would be helpful and informative to let you all know that we are about more than just the TSOs and the FAMS you always hear about.

For instance, we get lots of questions about why this or why that in a foreign country. The fact is, TSA is responsible for implementing and enforcing security standards in domestic airports, that’s about 450 airports in our country. We work with our foreign partners to harmonize measures. For instance, approximately 80 countries are on the same regime for liquids. Flights from foreign countries to the United States must adhere to our security standards. TSA has security representatives in 19 countries around the globe. These individuals are responsible for working with local governments and carriers, US and foreign, that fly to, from or over the US to ensure they're complying with regulations.

The agency is working aggressively with our U.S. Coast Guard colleagues to complete the enrollment of all USCG-credentialed mariners and all personnel requiring unescorted access to secure areas of Maritime Transportation Security Act regulated vessels and facilities into the Transportation Worker Identification Card program. With an estimated 1.2 million people to enroll, TSA has already signed up more than 700,000 mariners and is well on the well to meet the nationwide compliance date of April 15.

The original compliance date of September 15 was extended to April 15 as a direct result of collaboration with port officials and industry, and realigns the enrollment period with the original intent of the TWIC final rule. The original compliance date was based on an 18 month enrollment period scheduled to begin March of 2007. The beginning of enrollment was suspended and the first port (Wilmington, DE) began enrolling workers in October 2007. This allowed for less than one year to enroll more than 1.2 million workers.

While nationwide enforcement is being realigned to April 2009, several ports have already complied and several more will become compliant in the coming months.

In Transportation Sector Network Management or TSNM, we lead the unified national effort to protect and secure a wide range of our nation’s transportation systems. TSNM covers highway and motor carriers, maritime, mass transit, pipelines, freight rail and general aviation.

As our Web site states, “every day, the transportation network connects cities, manufacturers, and retailers, moving large volumes of goods and individuals through a complex network of approximately 4 million miles of roads and highways, more than 100,000 miles of rail, 600,000 bridges, more than 300 tunnels and numerous sea ports, 2 million miles of pipeline, 500,000 train stations, and 500 public-use airports.”

How do we help? Well, essentially through grants and other supporting programs. Unlike aviation security, TSA is not charged with providing the physical security itself but with coordinating and regulating it. So we work with our industry partners and develop tools and exercises that help each “Sector” become more secure and therefore more safe.

For instance, recently TSA worked with local authorities by funding an exercise with a goal of being able to safely and predictably stop a transit bus remotely. Why would we want to stop a bus? Transit buses could be appealing to terrorists because of their unprecedented access to large population centers, critical infrastructures, etc., so stopping a bus might occur if the bus was hijacked by terrorists or was stolen for use as a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED).

The system, developed in coordination with TSA and industry, uses cellular communications and patches into the existing safety controls on the bus to restrict speed and activate the brake system on the bus to bring it to a safe stop and opens the doors for unobstructed access by law enforcement. The commands are received at the speed of texting, giving law enforcement a way to predict, and therefore choose, a location to stop the bus. This is just one example of things TSNM is doing to make all modes of transportation more safe.

Of course one blog post is not enough space to write about the dozens of proprietary K9 teams now charged with screening cargo, the hundreds of rail inspectors working with industry to enhance the secure infrastructure of that system, the men and women of TSA working to shore up general aviation or pipelines or subways or on and on .
 

I just thought that while so many bicker and argue about shoes or coats or laptops, thousands of folks at TSA are doing good work that keeps Americans safe each and every day.
So I hope you are as intrigued as I am about the work this agency does, because I would almost bet, you never even knew we did some of the things we do. I know I didn’t.
Nico
EoS Blog Team

Comments

Submitted by NoClu on

I'm guessing I won't be the first to ask, but here goes...

Why'd you use pictures of real police officers on this blog when your "officers" don't have police authority?

Submitted by Dunstan on

"Of course one blog post is not enough space to write about the dozens of proprietary K9 teams now charged with screening cargo, "

With tens of thousands of abandoned but potentially great dogs to adopt and train, you have a multi-breed breeding program, from which you choose a few for your programs...

Submitted by Seth on

It is saddening to see you so happy to take pride in your influence over foreign security organizations, forcing them to enforce ridiculous rules such as the liquids farce. Zero additional safety but the hatred of the rest of the world directed at our once grand country.

Thanks for nothing.

Submitted by Dunstan on

"For instance, 80 countries are on the same regime for liquids."

The word regime does have a negative, but in TSA's case, relevant overtone. Are you organizing as a coalition of subliminal totalitarian States, perhaps?

Perhaps you really should work to "harmonize measures" like the conversion from weight to volume, or metric units to avoirdupois.

Submitted by Nico on

The photo was taken during a remote bus exercise conducted recently. It directly reflects the partnerships we have built with local law enforcement to work with us in real and exercise scenarios.

Nico
EOS Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

NICO, aren't you the person who said that MMW images were so ok that young school children could see them without harm or concern yet when requested to post images of your family it suddenly became a big issue for you?

I'm sory but DHS/TSA is the biggest threat to liberty and freedom this country has experienced since the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"For instance, recently TSA worked with local authorities by funding an exercise with a goal of being able to safely and predictably stop a transit bus remotely. Why would we want to stop a bus? Transit buses could be appealing to terrorists because of their unprecedented access to large population centers, critical infrastructures, etc., so stopping a bus might occur if the bus was hijacked by terrorists or was stolen for use as a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED)."

This is a profoundly idiotic idea, one that can only have been conceived after watching the Keanu Reeves movie "Speed" one too many times, or mistaking it for a documentary. The likelihood of a bus takeover where the best option would be to stop the bus remotely is so vanishingly small as to be infinitesimal. What you're really doing is compromising the security of busses using such a system, because the system will be vulnerable to hacking attempts.

You are an embarrassment, the lot of you. Shame on you.

Submitted by Anonymous on

edited to rephrase a sentence.


Anonymous said...
NICO, aren't you the person who said that MMW images were so ok that young school children could see them without harm or concern yet when requested to post images of your family it suddenly became a big issue for you?

I'm sory but DHS/TSA is the biggest threat to liberty and freedom this country has experienced since the internment of American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII.

December 19, 2008 3:39 PM

Submitted by Anonymous on

I do hope it was not my tax dollars that funded the idiotic bus-stopping scheme.

Let's address a Timothy McVeigh scenario. How do you propose to stop those attacks? It happened once, so under your rules (liquid ban because of one unsuccessful attempt), you should be working to prevent something that is very real and more likely to happen than a terrorist taking over a public transit bus.

I am looking for a job, and I have a very vivid imagination, and could help you come up with a multitude of highly unlikely scenarios where you could pour millions of dollars down a bottomless hole. How about it?

Are you serious about being proud of these idiotic schemes? Please show all of us where any of this really makes us safer. To me, it just makes us look stupid.

Is there anyone at DHS that is well versed in true security? It seems not.

Submitted by Anonymous on

How many of these poor citizens would be killed by the officers in a real situation.

Guns in confined areas almost guarentee collateral damage.

Show the need for this stupidity.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think TSA Outside of the Airport" would be the best thing that could happen.

Lets keep TSA way out of the airports so America can get back to its business unpampered!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anon said "Are you serious about being proud of these idiotic schemes? Please show all of us where any of this really makes us safer. To me, it just makes us look stupid.

Is there anyone at DHS that is well versed in true security? It seems not."

And you are? The whole point of trying to secure transportation and the nation is to not throw away every idea that some person thinks is "idiotic" without any logical reasoning. By crushing ideas with arguments like that, you're missing the entire point. Are you seriously willing to take a chance that it won't EVER happen? Can you guarantee that? Of course not.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it never will.

And yes, honestly, not every idea is the absolute greatest, but that's the whole idea of being DYNAMIC. Follow a pattern and you lose.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Maybe you guys should spend your dollars censoring absurd movie scripts so that the American tax payer can save some money. It would be infinitely more effective than rigging remote shutdown mechanisms on every bus in America. If this is what you choose to publicize, who knows what hairbrained other ideas you have up your sleaves.

This is so stupid it is baffling.

Submitted by Anonymous on
Transit buses could be appealing to terrorists because of their unprecedented access to large population centers, critical infrastructures, etc., so stopping a bus might occur if the bus was hijacked by terrorists or was stolen for use as a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED).

What's missing here? You would think that people at DHS would be a bit smarter, but I guess not.

Don't you think if you were successful in stopping a bus driven by terrorists and full of explosives, that they just might blow the bus up when they figured that it was under your control?

If you can't stop the terrorists or the eventual explosion, what good is stopping the bus?

You really think the terrorists are just going to sit and wait for the bus to come to a halt, doors open, and law enforcement to come arrest them? Yeah right!

It's going to blow up no matter what control you have over it.

And now that you published this, and you believing that the terrorist read this blog daily, you have given all your secrets to them. Great job !!

PS: Can I get a job at DHS coming up with all those fancy acronyms?
Submitted by Joe on

On another note, whatever happened to the "Chance dot" TSA blog on JWICS? I enjoyed reading it this summer, came back to work over winter break and found it locked down.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"I just thought that while so many bicker and argue about shoes or coats or laptops, thousands of folks at TSA are doing good work that keeps Americans safe each and every day."

We have yet to see a single member of TSA doing any work, good or otherwise, to protect Americans. But more importantly, it is rather fitting that you are all happy inside at seeing a couple of thugs waving guns in a bus. You better be careful, your attempts to hide the fascist wishes of your agency are slipping. (Because seriously, there is no terrorist scenario where this would be what makes sense to do. Please explain why you want to cripple mass transit instead of trying to say, oh I don't know, screen cargo? Anyone can fedex a problematic package today if they so desire making all your 'efforts' in teh airport pointless.)

Submitted by Jay Reeder on

I think Bruce Schneier coined the term "Movie-Plot Scenarios" for just this kind of inane security rube-goldbergism.

A TSA that demands that shoes be removed and X-rayed for explosives, and yet that leaves the (far more capacious) body cavities unexamined is an organization dedicated to security theater, not security.

I'm not saying that body cavity searches should start, but rather that we should stop already with the silly "see, we're doing something" measures like the shoe nonsense and now the lets-stop-a-bus-with-a-text-message research.

Given the vast number of mass-casualty soft targets in the US, the only reason we haven't seen a politically motivated terrorist attack in the US since 2001 (as opposed to the routine school shootings et al) is because no one has had the gumption to up and do it.

I daresay any reader of this blog could execute a successful terrorist attack by the end of the month; but they won't, because Americans don't feel the need to become terrorists.

The irony is that the TSA, as the Federal agency that has by far the most in-person, coercive contact with the American public, has the power to make Americans feel like they live in a police state. And that is the one thing that would make Americans resort to terrorism.

Submitted by Andy on

This bus stopping device is ridiculous. I don't know what inspired it, since the bus bomb in "Speed" was set to go off when the bus slowed down. Your device wouldn't have helped.

As far as I know, most terrorist attacks on buses involve a suicide bomber or a bomb planted on the bus. Stopping the buses is useless when your first indication of an attack is an exploding bus. All you're boasting about is a glorified OnStar system for buses.

It would help if some punk kid goes for a joyride on a bus, but not for a serious terrorist attack.

Why don't you tell us about the TSA's attempt to bring airport-style security to IndyGo bus stops?

Submitted by Custom Patches on

Making a bus stop remotely does seem a bit overkill. I am not sure how effective this would be in deterring a threat in a real life scenario. However, I do appreciate the commitment by the TSA to keep the country safe. It is a tough job with lots of heavy criticism, but a necessary job indeed. We can only hope that improvements are made to keep this country safer by improving security, while at the same time making things much easier and less inconvenient for passengers and travelers.

Submitted by Anonymous on
Transit buses could be appealing to terrorists because of their unprecedented access to large population centers, critical infrastructures, etc., so stopping a bus might occur if the bus was hijacked by terrorists or was stolen for use as a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED).

If you really want to cause damage using a transit bus, you will just have to rig it with explosives and trigger it remotely. There's absolutely no need for terrorists to hijack the bus itself.
A plain normal car driven by a terrorist will have same unprecedented access to large population centers, critical infrastructures, etc. as the transit busses.

Please do use some common sense instead of fancying gibberish.
Submitted by Yangj08 on

Great. Attempt to close one hold and open a bigger one. Because terrorists couldn't also cause trouble by grinding the whole bus system to a halt with the right info (and if you think it won't leak, that's the wrong way to work this out- always work under the assumption that info is going to leak)

Submitted by Anonymous on

I thought TSA was perfectly fine with diverting potential terrorists to targets other than airliners. Actually catching terrorists, or even arresting them is someone else's job.

Making flying marginally more difficult is the justification y'all give for your many leaky "layers of security". Even if you are at your tip-top best and everyting works absolutely right, you've got nothing that keeps a suicide bomber from using the time-tested tactic of blowing up one of your checkpoint lines.

This program is a way of expanding your useless bureacracy.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Am I the only one who thinks there is a high likelihood of a TSA 'employee' wounding themselves with a 'RedMan (tm)' weapon during a bus-clearing drill?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Haven't you, TSA, done enough damage to public transportation in the airports?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"For instance, 80 countries are on the same regime for liquids. Flights from foreign countries to the United States must adhere to our security standards."

Those sentences are not in agreement with each other. Either the countries have the same liquids rules, OR the accept to implement them for flights to the US (under the penalty of not being able to send direct flights to the US).

Having a lot of foreign flight experience, I know the latter is true: Many countries do not have the silly liquid rule, and only limit liquids for US-bound flights.

That is not harmonizing measures. It is imposing rules other countries do not want to follow, making them accept them only where necessary.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Security is an interest of mine, and I earn my daily living from working in the IT security field. When it comes to airport security, the regime is not as synchronized as you think.

When I'm traveling, I usually try to "bend" the rules a little to see how the control mechanism are implemented. From this, I have noticed that most rules are not synchronized (other than on the formal papers). I have also noticed that many of those screening my luggage are either blind, lazy or don't care. At least, they often don't say anything about laptops in there (that I rarely take out) and liquids don't seem to be noticed either.

I could go into more details, but I guess that would get my comment deleted.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Does this mean we may have to remove shoes and dump our water before getting on the bus? No? Why not? Aren't shoes and water dangerous??

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why isn't it likely that a terrorist would take over a bus? They get blown up all the time in other countries. If there was a bus with terrorists and bombs driving around your city I think you would want it stopped.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think the McVeigh scenario was addressed many years ago with stronger restrictions and licensing requirements for the purchase of large amounts of the chemicals needed to pull that off. And if you watched the video of that truck bomb that destroyed the hotel, the plans to stop those attacks can only do so much. That truck was stopped before its real target but it still caused a lot of damage.

Submitted by Anonymous on

So now a disgruntled employee could SMS the bus system to a stop during some rush hour? You've just taken a decentralized system and made it less safe by adding an attractive centralized point of failure. How many people can die due to a bad rush hour? Now each driver will need to know how to do a Keanu Reeves to keep on his route on schedule.

Tell us more of these movie-plot threats TSA is aiming its "thousands"-strong troupe of security theatre thespians at. Or don't--I'm sure the reality is more absurd than we can imagine.

Submitted by Kellymae81 on

Since I work for TSA, I'm sure you can guess that I'm all for security. I'm not sure what I think of this new side of it to be honest with you, but like some bloggers on here say, terrorists are likely to start hitting elsewhere besides aviation. Is the government spending too much on this new idea...maybe, who knows. Maybe they think that the POSSIBILITY of saving lives (yours included) is worth it. So you can say "screw the government" all you want.

I personally have to say that I think this is very forward thinking. If we stood around and waited for something to happen before we said "okay, terrorists are targeting elsewhere, lets do something about it now", then we would be blamed we didn't do anything to try and prevent it. You'd say "Where's our tax money being spent?"

If nothing ever happens to a bus, you can be pessimistic and say "money wasted" OOOOOOR you can be optimistic and say "money well spent" b/c it prevented something from happening. Honestly, I would be so unhappy if I were some of you, b/c sadly, most of you think so negatively. Maybe THAT'S where Americans go wrong. Not where money spent might save even one life...that to me is money well spent.

SDF TSO

Submitted by Kellymae81 on

NoClu said: Why'd you use pictures of real police officers on this blog when your "officers" don't have police authority?

Boy, your name says it all!!!! If you people would just read instead of skimming through to find the negatives so you can complain and feed that hunger called pessimism, you might get the information you need before asking a question you could have found the answer to yourself!!!

This is from the post:
Unlike aviation security, TSA is not charged with providing the physical security itself but with coordinating and regulating it. So we work with our industry partners and develop tools and exercises that help each “Sector” become more secure and therefore more safe. For instance, recently TSA WORKED WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES by funding an exercise with a goal of being able to safely and predictably stop a transit bus remotely.

Oh, and by the way, you can stop putting quotations around officer when referring to TSA b/c that's what we are. We certainly aren't ballerinas or mechanics. I don't understand what you think we should be called.

SDF TSO

Submitted by Anonymous on

Many people did not think that the World Trade Center buildings would ever fall from a terrorist attack, but they did fall.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Kelliemae@ "If nothing ever happens to a bus, you can be pessimistic and say "money wasted" OOOOOOR you can be optimistic and say "money well spent" b/c it prevented something from happening. Honestly, I would be so unhappy if I were some of you, b/c sadly, most of you think so negatively. Maybe THAT'S where Americans go wrong. Not where money spent might save even one life...that to me is money well spent."

##################

kellymae81: The money that we are wasting on TSA is not being spent on health care for infants, lifesaving classes, or improved roads and bridges, each of which has a much bigger payoff than the very uncertain probability of "saving even one life" in TSA's paranoid fantasy world.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"Many people did not think that the World Trade Center buildings would ever fall from a terrorist attack, but they did fall."

And not one single thing TSA has done would have prevented that from happening.

Submitted by Anonymous on
Oh, and by the way, you can stop putting quotations around officer when referring to TSA b/c that's what we are. We certainly aren't ballerinas or mechanics. I don't understand what you think we should be called.

Kellymae81, where to begin? You might be officers, but in this case calling a TSO an officer is equivalent to calling a garbage collector a sanitation engineer. You've got the name for as much good as that does you, but not much else. You don't carry guns (except for A.C), have no authority to detain someone, and mostly serve to provide comedic relief during security theater.
Submitted by Anonymous on

The American military cant even stop the terrorists in Iraq.
How are they going to stop them in the U.S.?
How can you defeat terrorists who are willing to die for their beliefs?
How is it that one suicide bomber can take out a group of heavily armed, highly trained, American soldiers?
Security in America must be just as highly trained as the terrorists and think like them to defeat them.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Oh, and by the way, you can stop putting quotations around officer when referring to TSA b/c that's what we are. We certainly aren't ballerinas or mechanics. I don't understand what you think we should be called.
///////////////////////
KellyMae, have you taken note that a lot of people laugh at a baggage security screener being called "Officer"? Why do you think that is?

An officer is generally one looked up to as an authority figure. An officer is generally expected to have strong morals. An officer is generally counted on to be honest.

Not much of those things apply to TSA employees. Like the one who brought his gun to work. Those who steal from the public. Othes who abuse people at the checkpoints.

You go ahead and call yourself an "officer".

I will not!

Submitted by Sandra on

Kellymae:

Here is the definition of the word "officer":

officer
Noun
1. a person in the armed services, or on a non-naval ship, who holds a position of authority
2. a policeman or policewoman
3. a person holding a position of authority in a government or organization ( before you get all excited and tell me you are in a position of authority in a government agency, the term "officer" here refers to "executive officer".)

A TSA screener is none of the above.

Submitted by Anonymous on

OFFICER

1. a person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, esp. one who holds a commission.
2. a member of a police department or a constable.
3. a person licensed to take full or partial responsibility for the operation of a merchant ship or other large civilian ship; a master or mate.
4. a person appointed or elected to some position of responsibility or authority in the government, a corporation, a society, etc.
5. (in some honorary orders) a member of any rank except the lowest.

I do believe TSA officer fits #1. It would fit under similar organization.

Submitted by Tomas on
Yet another Anonymous wrote...
OFFICER

1. a person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, esp. one who holds a commission.
2. a member of a police department or a constable.
3. a person licensed to take full or partial responsibility for the operation of a merchant ship or other large civilian ship; a master or mate.
4. a person appointed or elected to some position of responsibility or authority in the government, a corporation, a society, etc.
5. (in some honorary orders) a member of any rank except the lowest.

I do believe TSA officer fits #1. It would fit under similar organization.

...and I would not. I was only an NCO in 'Nam, never was an "officer" and there are two things wrong with that statement in my opinion:

(1) The TSA is by no stretch a military organization, and is not and armed force - legitimately, when on duty, they are not even ALLOWED to have so much as a butter knife with a scalloped edge.

(2) A line TSA screener is at most a pseudo-corporal, well down in the "military" ranks, and certainly not an "officer."

A screener, a lead, a supervisor, and even lower level managers would be enlisted, NCOs at the highest. It wouldn't until one got to the higher level positions that one could be considered a pseudo-officer in the pseudo-military.

As to being an "armed force" the TSA and their TSOs match up at most with maybe the Salvation Army (no disrespect intended to the Salvation Army).

Having been military, having put my life on the line in a war zone, it grates on my nerves to have a bunch of officious underware checkers claim they are "putting their lives on the line daily" and should be considered "officers" in the armed forces.

That sort of hubris does NOT increase the general public's respect for the TSA or their TSOs, nor do the pseudo-police uniforms.

Tom (1 of 5-6)

(Apologies to those TSOs who really do their best in an unlikable organization. It is the time of year again when I get a bit sensitive about some of the nuances of feigned danger. See: http://www.tijil.org/blog/?p=13 )
Submitted by Anonymous on

@Anonymous: "A person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, esp. one who holds a commission"

In no way is TSA like the Army, Navy or Air Force. And it's employees certainly don't have commissions or the experience to be a NCO.

Submitted by Skywayman on

I was proud to be able to ride the Phoenix Light Rail on its first day of operation this past weekend. It opened on December 28th to the expected large crowds. I couldn't help but notice a number of TSA TSO's were clustered together at several stops. I wasn't entirely sure what they were doing but it seemed to me that 3 or 4 of them in one place was less effective then 3 or 4 scattered in the crowd. I'm sure the reason they were there was an additional security presence at a high profile opening to supplement the police. The police actually were scattered in different locations in the crowd though. Now can someone tell me exactly what authority a TSO has on a public transit platform? An article in our paper about their presence attracted a poster who wrote a TSO would not allow him to set up a camera tripod to take pictures of the event without a permit. (Now yes this does fall into the category of a friend of a friends cousin told me and so on since I did not actually witness this) According to the poster the Police present at the event told him he could set up the tripod. Further that they were not told anyone would need a permit, let alone where to apply for it. The poster claimed the TSO couldn't tell him where to apply for the permit either and had referred him to the Police officers present. Now like I said I didn't witness this. It could be someone making up a story to make TSA look bad. Unfortunately though I have no idea what authority a TSO has at a transit station. If it had been me confronted in this manner I'd have asked the TSO to have a Police officer come over and talk to me. That is exactly what a security guard should do under those circumstances if I'm refusing to cooperate. So does TSA have the power to arrest me or check to see if I'm fair dodging or even ask me, "Do you want to ride today?" Whether the anonymous web posters claims are accurate or not sadly they're believable. I think we should know what authority TSA has in those situations.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think they are there just to be extra eyes for law enforcement.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"The agency is working aggressively with our U.S. Coast Guard colleagues to complete the enrollment of all USCG-credentialed mariners and all personnel requiring unescorted access to secure areas of Maritime Transportation Security Act regulated vessels and facilities into the Transportation Worker Identification Card program. With an estimated 1.2 million people to enroll, TSA has already signed up more than 700,000 mariners and is well on the well to meet the nationwide compliance date of April 15"

The TSA TWIC program is so poorly concived and mis-managed by Lockheed Martin, that is in no way near being ready for April 15. Only 500k cards have been activated in the past 15 months since enrollments began. each day we hear of more and more screw ups by TSA on this one and once again are subjected to happy talk on how great it is.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Major problems with the TWIC card admin. Does anyone know what they are doing with reguards to the TWIC cards, Why is there no proper channel to complian about this program??,no direct communication with the TSA over this program. Who is responsiable for overseeing this program??

Submitted by Dan S on

Security Theater at its most flamboyant. Bravo!

Remotely disabling vehicles is a fantastic trick in the movies and prime time dramas. Its utility when dealing with a suicide bomber, however is not so fantastic -- as, usually, the first indication that you have a suicide bomber on a bus is an exploding bus.

I'm guessing that none of you have ever seen the aftermath of a suicide bombing, firsthand. (Not that I'd wish that on anyone -- I lost sleep after coordinating with the Israeli National Police on one.) If you had, you'd realize that a reactive strategy will leave you picking up chunks of what were formerly human beings and hosing the blood off the asphalt. An effective strategy to prevent terrorism requires effort, HUMINT, law enforcement coordination and outreach to the disgruntled population.

Submitted by Anonymous on

7th anniversary of TSA? So this means 7 years for the government to spy and control the people deliveredly! What a contradiction for the country of freedom!
TSA just made things expensiver, more complicated and intrusive.
I'm sure when they receive money they don't put so many troubles:P
I prefer to fly unsafer and relaying on people's own conscience as fakingly safe with all the troubles and money TSA suposes.

Submitted by Bob on

This is to the passenger who posted a comment about their 87 year old mother. You posted your personal e-mail address in your comment, so I rejected the comment.

If you intended to post your e-mail address in a public forum, repost and I'll approve your comment.

Also, I suggest using for your issue.

Thanks,

Bob
EoS Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

The Law Enforcement side of TSA is the U.S. Federal Air Marshalls. Yes TSA does have Federal Agents with arrest power.

Pages