USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Secure Flight: TSA Now Performing 100% Watchlist Matching for Domestic Flights

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 This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.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, June 11, 2010
plane takeoff

Secure Flight started rolling out in 2009 and I'm happy to announce that TSA is now performing 100% of the watchlist matching for domestic flights. (Airlines used to conduct all of the passenger watchlist matching)

What is watchlist matching? It's when a passenger is prescreened using their name, date of birth and gender (that should match the information on their approved official government ID) against government watchlists for domestic and international flights. Actual names on the list are identified by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center as being people who may pose a known or suspected threat to aviation.

Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists and will allow more than 99% of travelers to print their boarding passes from home or kiosks and avoid undergoing additional screening because of a mismatch. Passengers who feel they have been misidentified should visit the DHS TRIP program Webpage to file a complaint.

We've been blogging about Secure Flight for quite some time now and we've compiled answers to some of the most common questions we've received in the two blog posts below.

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous on

When are you going to post strip-search images that are the same size and resolution as those seen by the operators of the machines, Bob?

Submitted by Anonymous on

How many countries require 100% of air passengers to remove their shoes for inspection?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why does TSA want to take naked pictures of minor children?

Submitted by Anonymous on

What peer-reviewed, independent research supports TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy?

Submitted by Anonymous on

When are you going to address the article in Nature that exposed the pseudoscientific foundations of the ridiculous, Orwellian, and massively wasteful SPOT program that you've boasted about in the past? Do you think that we're just going to forget about it?

Submitted by TSORon on

Thanks Bob. As usual that was a concise and informative post with as much relevant information as one would want.

And now the redundant questions start.

Submitted by Earl Pitts on

Translation: The government, thru TSA, now must be asked permission for American citizens to travel by air.

Didn't we, as a nation, make fun of places like the USSR, Eastern Bloc, and other communist/authoritarian countries for being backward and not giving their people the travel without asking permission? And didn't we think that such a thing would never happen here?

Guess the USSR was on to something, eh? And all spun with propaganda to make it sound like a great and wonderful thing!

Welcome to the new Amerika, comrade.

Earl

Submitted by Anonymous on

It's Friday so I must be puppy post day.


Bob so what about this report out if the us virgin islands about the tsa employee that is charged with jury tampering and has drug convictions in his past. Is this just "another isolated incident" that "doesn't reflect on the rest of tsa"

this isn't a isolated incident this becoming regular occurance in the news.

Submitted by Sandra on

Bob, how many dedicated terrorists travel under their given names with ID/passports issued in those names?

"None", you say? Then how will this program be effective? It serves only to harass innocent individuals.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Wow, and it only took 8 years and some change to start doing it. Good job!

Submitted by Anonymous on

So Bob, if TSA properly screens passengers then what difference does it make who flies?

Spending taxpayer's money just to inflate your agency's power base is obscene.

Submitted by Anonymous on

So now that TSA says they are doing "100% watchlist matching" for domestic flights, does that mean the TSA PR machine will quit deflecting blame when innocent passengers are delayed and harassed due to the blacklists and when the redress system proves to continue to be useless and ineffective?

Just curious. You can't have it both ways. So it's beyond time to quit blaming the airlines and innocent passengers for their problems.


BTW, has 8-year-old Mikey Hicks had his problem resolved and received an apology from TSA?

Submitted by TSO C4 on

Blogger Bob said:
Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists.

Please provide an example. If my name is Osama, Saddam, Jihad, or any other "Similar" Terrorist name will I be selected for additional screening? What happens if I share the gender, DOB & a similar name w/ a real terrorist? Will TSA subject me to additional screening?

Submitted by RB on

Communist States of America brought to you by TSA!

Submitted by Adrian on

Forget the erosion of civil liberties for a moment. Secure Flight makes us less secure.

1. It forces every airline passenger to provide more identification information to the airlines, which means they are at much greater risk from crimes like identity theft/credit fraud.

2. The privacy policies associated with Secure Flight do not seem to apply any rules to what the airlines can do with the additional information you provide. Even if they don't intentionally misuse your information, the design of the system still requires your personal information to be transmitted at least twice and stored in at least two places, creating many more opportunities for data leaks.

3. Secure Flight makes it easy for terrorists to test to see if they are on a watch list and therefore subject to more scrutiny without any risk. For the cost of a few cheap tickets, they can discover which of their agents are not on the lists--often without even visiting the airport--and then design their plans accordingly.

4. The whole idea of pre-screening creates a window of vulnerability, both in time and in the two-IDs and two-boarding passes switcheroo.

If you buy the premise that it's a good idea to check passengers against a secret list of people who are dangerous and yet not-arrestable, you wouldn't do it this way. It's too complicated to work well, and all that complexity creates new dangers.

Instead, you'd put a terminal at the entrance of every checkpoint. It would have a barcode reader and a magstripe reader that could read nearly every type of government-issued ID. It would also have a keyboard for the tiny fraction of non-machine-readable IDs. The TSA officer who normally checks your ID would also swipe it through the terminal, and it would tell him/her whether the passenger is on a list.

The passenger's information doesn't need to be transmitted or stored anywhere. Airline tickets and boarding passes could be anonymous. This eliminates the possible data leaks and logging concerns.

Terrorists wouldn't get advance warning about their status. They'd have to nervously stand in front of a government agent, surrounded by impatient passengers, giving the Behavior Detection Officers a chance to see their guilt-broadcasting microtwitches (if you believe in that baloney).

If the terminals are updated constantly with changes to the lists, then you close the window of vulnerability in time. And since there's no compare-the-boarding-pass-to-the-ID step, you eliminate the switcheroo hack.

And, as a bonus, the security line would be faster, as there's actually less for the ID-checker to do.

And all this would cost less than a couple WBI machines. In fact, it would probably cost less than the infrastructure TSA built to administer the data rention and deletion policies for the existing Secure Flight scheme. It reduces the burden on the airlines, which might help them make a profit, and it restores the ticket resale market, which drives down ticket prices.

Secure Flight is so badly designed for its stated goals, one can conclude that either its actual goals are different than its stated goals or that its designers are utterly incompetent.

Submitted by Adrian on

> Actual names on the list are identified by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center as being people who may pose a known or suspected threat to aviation.

That's where *some* of the names comes from. According to this article,

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/339185/former_tsa_analyst_charge...

the names also come from the United States Marshal's Service Warrant Information Network. I assume that's not actually a watch list of terrorists, but a list of people with outstanding warrants. This is really about turning the airport security checkpoint into a dragnet.

But of course, we don't *really* know who's on the list and who isn't because it's secret. The criteria for getting a name on or off the list is secret. (Unless you're Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela who managed to get off the list by an act of Congress.)

We've had several posts about how TSA has pruned the size of the list, but no posts have acknowledged that it has once again *doubled* in length.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/national/main6286899.shtml

We don't know how well access to the list is controlled. The above articles suggest that there are some problems in this regard. At least one TSA person been indicted for tampering with the database. Ultimately who gets on or off the list is in the hands of about six TSA employees. Can I get the name of my political enemy on the list by bribing just one or two people? Quite possibly.

I'm fundamentally against this Minority Report style pre-crime nonsense. I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the government can restrict the rights of a set of people whose names match those on a secret list--people who aren't even suspicious enough to arrest and charge with a crime. If you make it hard to get on a plane with a viable weapon, then you don't really have to worry about who's on that plane. We can all be treated equally by the government.

Imagine if Mr. Sizzlypants had been turned back at the airport checkpoint. He would walk away and try to find another way to attack. Instead, he's in custody providing information. And nobody got hurt (except Mr. Sizzlypants himself). That, my friends, is what success looks like.

Submitted by Anonymous on

So Bob, does this mean I no longer have to use a variation of my full name and still be able to check in on-line? I mean if the airline now has my Secure Flight details they should be able to recognize I'm not the Ted Kennedy they are looking form.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Is it just me, or are some TSA airports in the news more than others?

Philly again. Isn't there any management control there?

Submitted by Kat on

This does not have to do with Secure Flight -- it does have to do with traveling without harassment.

I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Kat, TSA's official policy about 3.4-1-1 is to lie to the public.

Submitted by Anonymous on

What the HELL is wrong with you people in Philly?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Geez, I'd think that if one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world published a scathing critique of one of the cornerstones of an organization's approach that the organization in question might want to, oh, I don't know, maybe respond to those allegations at some point.

If you are so confident in the efficacy of the SPOT program, you must have at least some information that you would like to share, no? Oh, silly me, I must have forgotten that any information that is at all relevant to the actual ability of the TSA to perform the task that it has been assigned is a highly guarded secret, known only to tens of thousands of entry level employees who meet TSA's rather low hiring standards.

Submitted by HappyToHelp on

Kat said…
“I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?”

Signage will not be changed. Effective 2/25/09, only future references on the blog, web content, and the contact center’s response will reflect 3.4 oz.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by HappyToHelp on

Adrian said...
“the names also come from the United States Marshal's Service Warrant Information Network. I assume that's not actually a watch list of terrorists, but a list of people with outstanding warrants. This is really about turning the airport security checkpoint into a dragnet.”

The No Fly and Selectee Lists are based on all the records in the TSDB and the No Fly and Selectee Lists represent the subset of names who meet the criteria of the No Fly and Selectee designations. However, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and as required under the IRTPA, TSA may use ‘‘the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal government’’ when warranted by security considerations. For example, TSA may learn that flights on a particular route may be subject to increased security risk. Under this circumstance, TSA may decide to compare passenger information on some or all of the flights on that route against the full TSDB or other government databases, such as intelligence or law enforcement databases. Thus, TSA defines ‘‘watch list’’ for purposes of the Secure Flight program as the No Fly and Selectee List components of the Terrorist Screening Database maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center. For certain flights, the ‘‘watch list’’ may include the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal government as warranted by security considerations.
49 CFR Parts 1540, 1544, and 1560 Secure Flight Program; Final Rule

Adrian said...
“Ultimately who gets on or off the list is in the hands of about six TSA employees. Can I get the name of my political enemy on the list by bribing just one or two people? Quite possibly.”

TSC makes the final decision on whether a person meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into TSDB as a known or suspected terrorist and which screening systems will receive the information about that known or suspected terrorist. It is not uncommon for a nomination to have multiple recommendations throughout the watchlisting process. In the end, however, TSC works with NCTC and the originators to ensure a nomination is exported to as many screening systems as the nomination information supports.
Timothy J. Healy Statement before the House Judiciary Committee March 24, 2010

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Bubba on

Bob,

I´m going to continue to bring this up, because it is preposterous for the TSA to completely ignore it:

Nature, the leading scientific journal in the World, published an extensive article questioning the Science behind the SPOT program. The article is quite detailed and specific to the US SPOT program. That same program that costs US$ 200 million a year.

How can you justify the continuation of such a program under these circumstances?

Do you really think that by completely ignoring this article, the problem will simply go away? Sorry to tell you, but I´m not budging on this point.

Don´t you think that, at the very least, your organization should have prepared some kind of answer to the journal itself?

Or can´t you find a way to justify the unjustifiable?

Submitted by Jamorama Guitar on

@Kat,

I agree with you. This really is about less harassment. I'm pretty sure that about half of these comments are from the same angry guy as well. haha

I think that this policy is going to be helpful to be honest. Heck if anyone was scared to travel because they felt that they would be mistakenly identified as someone on "the list", they don't have to worry as much.

As far as where the list came from and who decides who is on the list, that's a completely different story. It's probably not within the jurisdiction of the TSA anyway.

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSO C4 said...
Blogger Bob said:
Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists.

Please provide an example. If my name is Osama, Saddam, Jihad, or any other "Similar" Terrorist name will I be selected for additional screening? What happens if I share the gender, DOB & a similar name w/ a real terrorist? Will TSA subject me to additional screening?

June 12, 2010 11:29 AM
..............
What does the name matter if the person is properly screened for WEI?

Submitted by Diane on

I am going to a textile workshop and I am supposed to bring scissors.Since there is a fee to check bags I am trying to get everything I need in a carry-on. I need clarification on the regulations for bringing scissors in a carry-on. Are all scissors less than 4 in ok to carry or only those without pointed ends? Or can I carry any scissors as long as they don't have pointy ends? Many crafters want to have sewing needles and scissors with them to work on things during the flight. I see explainations for knitting & needlepoint, what about crochet?

Submitted by RB on

Bob are the images that TSA post outside of WBI screeners actual images showing the same degree of detail and resolution as seen by TSA employees or has TSA effectively lied to the public by posting images that have been manipulated so they do not raise the concerns of people about to be Strip Searched?

Submitted by Adrian on

Further evidence that unconstitutional watch lists are dangerous:

A Canadian citizen was added to a terrorist watch list based on faulty intelligence. He was not a terrorist, nor did he have connections to terrorists.

During a layover in the US, he was taken into custody and rendered to Syria, where he was subjected to torture for 10.5 months.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/arar-supreme-court/

Secret watch lists are dangerous and unconstitutional.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I am a "Trusted Traveler" with a Nexus card. Yet I STILL had to tolerate a hands-on pat down administered by TSA agents AT THE GATE who pounced on me like they had been waiting for me for hours. The feeling of having another human being "pat down" my pubic bone without probable cause is is invasive, pointless, and a violation of my civil rights.

No, I would not let you take a naked image of me to avoid this, either.

It does not make anyone safer to grope a person who is no threat.

I paid to have background checks conducted before hand to prove that I am no threat to anyone. Yet I still have to be "patted down"?

What is even more ridiculous is that the pat down was done very perfunctorily and would not have detected a concealed weapon (I am law enforcement trained). So I really was groped for no reason at all. It is obvious that TSOs are going through the motions without putting much thought into who or what they are searching.

I truly hope the natural disasters and oil spills calm down so that the Obama Administration can turn its eye on TSA and correct these inexcuseable violations of Americans' civil rights.

Submitted by RB on

Sky Harbor Airports gets Child Porn Strip Search Machines.
Machines that make images that clearly show genitalia.

Are these the same images that are safe for school children to view and suitable for the cover of Readers Digest as claimed by TSA?

Sky Harbor Airport gets new body scanner

"The face is indiscernible. Genitalia are clearly in the image."

Read more:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/06/18/20100...

Submitted by TSO Tom on

Adrian said in part....
Instead, you'd put a terminal at the entrance of every checkpoint. It would have a barcode reader and a magstripe reader that could read nearly every type of government-issued ID. It would also have a keyboard for the tiny fraction of non-machine-readable IDs. The TSA officer who normally checks your ID would also swipe it through the terminal, and it would tell him/her whether the passenger is on a list.
***********************************
As a TSO, I have to agree with this statement in particular. Give us the ability to scan the barcode on the back of Government issued identification, and let the database tell us whether or not you are on the list. Also, we need to give travelers a means of redress in case someone comes up on the list who should not be on the list. In other words, vet the list more thoroughly so that the average Joe or Jane can travel freely, while the person with harmful intent is either denied access, arrested, or screened thoroughly. This will also strengthen our TDC procedures, and bring us up to speed technologically.
TSA has a severely bad reputation, and part of it is because of a lack of information to the public, we CAN correct that without divulging Sensitive information. Thanks for your input Adrian.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.
__________________________________
Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
Kat, TSA's official policy about 3.4-1-1 is to lie to the public.

June 15, 2010 3:38 PM

..................
Lying to the public is the Cornerstone of TSA Policy.

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.
__________________________________
Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

June 22, 2010 8:04 AM

...........
What is more sad is a federal agency that intentionally places signage in airports that is incorrect.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I will refuse to go through a full body scanner, nor will allow my children to go through it.
It is a huge cumulative health risk, and it is degrading. And, the leading radiation experts warn against this technology.

There are certainly safer options than this.

And, I don't think anyone feels any safer now, than they felt before.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I will not allow full body scanner on me or on my children. It is a health risk, and talk to any doctor in this field and they'll tell you there is no safe radiation dose.

I wonder how much more humiliation and intrusion will public endure?

Does anyone really feel safer with this?

Submitted by RB on

Suggestion for TSA.

At each TSA checkpoint a sign using the largest text size possible giving the name and contact information for the FSD and Customer Service Manager for that facility.

Submitted by Anonymous on
I am a "Trusted Traveler" with a Nexus card. Yet I STILL had to tolerate a hands-on pat down administered by TSA agents AT THE GATE... Welcome to the new America. It isn't just TSA, DHS but all government TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) that have no respect for nor sense of responsibility to the citizens of this country. It's a national disgrace.
Submitted by Kat on
Kat said: Wasn't this [3.4 ounces / 100 ml] supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?”

Tim said: Signage will not be changed. Effective 2/25/09, only future references on the blog, web content, and the contact center’s response will reflect 3.4 oz.

Then, Tim, what do I do when I arrive at the airport with the 100 ml containers (which containers I purchased at significant expense from Canada since only 2 ounce and 4 ounce containers are available in the US) of safe food, and the TSO on duty points to these incorrect signs and tells me I have to throw my food out because it is more than three ounces?
Submitted by Kat on
Kat said: Wasn't this [3.4 ounces / 100 ml vs 3 ounces] supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.
__________________________________
Anonymous said: Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

A.N. Onymous,

I'm one of many thousands of Americans with severe food allergies. I must carry my own safe food when I travel. There is nothing safe for me to eat which I can purchase in the secure area of any airport because it's all processed junk food with a million hyper-allergenic additives.

I have plenty to worry about when I travel. Not the least of which is whether or not an improperly trained TSO using inaccurate information will put me in the hospital because he or she has stolen my safe food.
Submitted by TSO Tom on

RB said in part:
What is more sad is a federal agency that intentionally places signage in airports that is incorrect.

June 22, 2010 11:01 AM
***********************************
I have to agree with RB on this one, management truly needs to update the signs in our airports, and inform airports of the correct requirements, because the rule of 3.0 has long since been updated to 3.4....how can TSA management expect TSOs to enforce 3.4 when the signs and the airport PA systems specificially state 3.0? It is critical that this gets corrected as it will not only make the public more informed, it will make MY job a little bit easier.

Submitted by Adrian on

Tim, your response to my post is misleading and missing the point.

The CBS article says:

"Ultimately, the final decision is in the hands of about six experts from the Transportation Security Administration."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/national/main6286899.shtml

It was misleading to attribute that comment to me rather than to the source I was quoting.

And your response was missing the point. The comments you quoted from Timothy J. Healy in what I assume is an attempt to refute the statement I quoted are talking about something else. Healy was explaining how names get in at the front of the pipeline. The CBS article is talking about how there are only about six people involved at the end of the pipeline.

Ultimately, the people at the end of the pipeline decide which names get on and who don't.

And one of those TSA employees at the end of the pipeline was indicted for attempting to tamper with the database.

I see that the Good Gear Guide article has been revised since I posted. Before it made a specific claim that names on the No-Fly and Selectee lists came from TIDE *and* the Marshals Warrant Service. The revised version points out that the indicted employee was charged with attempted tampering with both the TSA lists and the Marshals list. Why would a TSA employee have access to the Marshals Warrant Information Network?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"Geez, I'd think that if one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world published a scathing critique of one of the cornerstones of an organization's approach that the organization in question might want to, oh, I don't know, maybe respond to those allegations at some point.

If you are so confident in the efficacy of the SPOT program, you must have at least some information that you would like to share, no? Oh, silly me, I must have forgotten that any information that is at all relevant to the actual ability of the TSA to perform the task that it has been assigned is a highly guarded secret, known only to tens of thousands of entry level employees who meet TSA's rather low hiring standards."

Beyond the SPOT failure:
Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the Republican leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, today released a government report which highlights failures at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to improve the security of the nation’s transportation systems.

Mica, from Florida’s 7th House district, said, “This is another example of our critical security agency, TSA, being lost and rudderless.”...

...Mica continued, “TSA has learned nothing from their problem-plagued aviation security programs. In fact, it seems quite clear that TSA is repeating many of the mistakes made in the aviation sector, including mediocre risk assessments, inadequate workforce planning, weak training for workers, poor coordination with stakeholders, and scant follow-up assessments of its intermodal security programs and technology deployments.”...

...“This report is further proof that this is an agency in need of complete reform. If the President’s latest nominee to lead the TSA is confirmed, I will urge him to immediately reevaluate and reorganize this enormous, costly, and unwieldy bureaucracy of over 60,000 employees. In this top-heavy agency, 30 percent of its Washington headquarters workforce is comprised of supervisors and the average headquarters salary is over $105,000.”...

Looks like Congress might take a close look at TSA.

Submitted by Chris Kopf @ Ww... on

I wonder if private companies could be more effective. Didn't many Federal websites get pulled down/injunctions issued after they launched them in early 2000's? Never heard of banks having problems like that.

By the way my CAPTCHA is Terann..I realize that's not exactly Iran's capital, but its closer than any other word I know.

Submitted by MarkVII on

I took a look at the Q&A and immediately came up on the following:

Q: Any word on the apparent Secure-Flight requirement that anyone who books their ticket within 72-hours of travel or changes their itinerary within 72 hours of travel (say due to a flight cancellation, weather delay, reroute, etc.) will be subject to HaraSSSSment via SSSSelectee SSSScreening?

A: Facilitating passenger air travel is a key goal of the Secure Flight program. To achieve that goal, Secure Flight was designed to be able to perform real-time watch list matching for passengers who are standing by or who have last minute flight changes.

The "answer" doesn't address the question. The question was whether a last minute booking or itinerary change would lead to being SSSSelected. The "answer" talks about real time watch list matching, but says nothing about whether or not last minute bookings or changes would lead to SSSSelection.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward question to me, that should have a straightforward answer. It's ironic that when the TSA poses the question the answer doesn't address the question.

Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSA removes things from your bags and does not return them. On Saturday, June 19. 2010, a TSA agent went through my nicely presses clothes and removed the item that they wanted, a watch. When I got my bag you would have been ever suprised at how that ramsacked my bag and no watch.
It was returned today with an apology.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Congratulations, TSA! Not only is there no evidence that Secure Flight will reduce any "mismatch issues", it's apparently caused a six-year old girl to appear on the list! The more you tell us that "There are no children on the list", the more I'm sure you're not telling us the truth.

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-westlake-ohio-six-year-old-no-fly-list...

Submitted by Anonymous on

Bob,

Comment?

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-westlake-ohio-six-year-old-no-fly-list...

WESTLAKE, Ohio - Alyssa Thomas, 6, is a little girl who is already under the spotlight of the federal government. Her family recently discovered that Alyssa is on the "no fly" list maintained by U.S. Homeland Security......

"She's been flying since she was two-months old, so that has not been an issue," said Alyssa's dad. "In fact, we had traveled to Mexico in February and there were no issues at that time."

....According to the Transportation Security Administration, Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, "the watch lists are an important layer of security to prevent individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorism from flying."

Pages