USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Please Post Off Topic Comments Here

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 This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.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, July 02, 2010
TSA logo

I have long allowed off topic comments. However, after many complaints from folks who would understandably like to stay on the subject, I am providing this post as a place to comment things that are way off topic with the current post.

I’ve added a link to this post on our sidebar so people will know to post off topic comments here.

You now have the option of subscribing to posts, so you’ll be able to keep up with the comments here if you so choose. So it’s not as if your comment is being exiled to the land of forgotten comments. We’ll be paying attention, and you can stay up to date with an RSS feed.

As much as we’d like to hear about your synchronized swimming club, I ask that all comments posted here remain TSA focused and adhere to TSA’s comment policy.

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous on

A friend has an insulin pump.

She avoids flying because of concerns at finding herself at the mercy of the TSA.

It is sad when the TSA has people with special needs afraid of them.

It is sadder still that their fear is justified.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"These people have walked past 12 (actual count) signs, some as large as 36 x 48"

Of course, every single one of those signs contains incorrect information, since TSA's policy is to lie to passengers.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The 9/11 attackers did not "just want to kill people for the sake of it."

They had specific political purposes and an agenda. They have been very successful.

We removed our air base from Saudi Arabia as they wanted.

We took out one of their targets; the too secular Saddam Hussein.

We were provoked into acting in ways that undermined our role as world leaders for the "rule of law".

They made us fearful and changed our way of life.

They did not "kill people for the sake of it" or because "they hate us for our freedoms".

Submitted by HappyToHelp on

RB said...
"How about a biggie; why are all of those dangerous liquids confiscated by TSA at checkpoints just tossed into common garbage as if they were not potentially dangerous?"

Good question RB. Nico answered this question back in 2009.
A clip from “What happens to your prohibited items?”
A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.


We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.


That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico

RB said…
“In TSA's efforts to keep important discussion hidden from the public will TSA finally answer some of the hundreds of questions that have been asked?”

This is a loaded question. TSA is not trying to hide public discussion. I don’t answer loaded questions RB, and will continue to discourage such posting.

RB said…
“How about a list of rules that passengers must comply with to successfully make it through a TSA Checkpoint?”

The checkpoint SOP will not become public. Congress called it a terrorist training manual. As far as a page containing “just rules” (like a penal code) and not procedure, I don’t think it is going to happen. Another then the blog, I have not heard anything about this, and am against it personally (just opinion feel free to ignore).

RB said…
“Or how about what happens if a person just doesn't want to show and identity document they have in their wallet?”

Best question so far. I am going to send an email out, and will answer your question by the end of this week.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

I would like to address the Nature article that is critical of TSA SPOT and Paul Ekman. Now I would like to say up front that I am not part of the TSA, so I have never gone through the SPOT training, but I do play a lot of poker on a semi professional level and have read several of Ekmans books. If you play poker, or just watch a lot on TV, than you know that in a high level of the game, apart from a strong strategy to included monitoring betting patterns, that you need skills in “stress detection”. This skill is critical in determining if your opponent real has a strong hand when he throws in all his chips of is he is just trying to bluff. The more important and stressful the play is, the easier it is to read your opponent. I am not saying that it is my, or any other serious players, main focus when playing, but it is indisputably a factor in high level play. Like I said I have read some of Ekmans work and have found what it says on human facial expression very helpful in developing this skill, and I intend to continue in my reading of the rest of his published work. As far as testing these skills in a controlled setting goes, it’s impossible. If it’s not the real thing than it simply can’t be used to the same extent. To apply it to poker, it would be like trying to equate the stress in a private no money game to the real thing with thousands of dollars on the table. The stress levels are to low to use this skill, what you are looking for simply is not there. I would think that if a person with the intent to take a flight down came through security that the stress levels would be so high, and as a result they would be so tense, that anyone who was watching him/her would know something was up. Giving TSA people training geared to detect it can only help in identifying it. Any replies to my post, as I am sure there will be, please address to Anon1.

Submitted by RB on

A question asked and gone unanswered;

What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?

Would a bottle larger than 100 ml not be exempted since it is a medically required liquid?

Submitted by TSORon on

RB stated…
So the end result for the child is exactly the same for her, she is considered to be on the NFL.

Such a simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
------------
Your comment is a bit obtuse RB. It is not TSA’s fault that the young lady has the same name as another individual who’s name is on the list, and that this other person presents a risk to civil aviation. I guess you could say that she is just an unlucky young lady that has another complication in her life. “Same name” problems have been present throughout the history of mankind, TSA is not the cause of this nor does any reasonable person expect the TSA to have an infallible answer for it.
-----------------------------------
Anonymous quipped …
So Secure Flight failed and the information recently provided about Secure Flight by Bob and the TSA cannot be trusted to be accurate.
-----------------------------------
Unfortunately there Anon there are limits to what can can done and what cannot to make any system 100% accurate. As I said to RB the TSA cannot control who has the same name as someone else on the list, nor does TSA stand in front of the poor passenger who’s name is the same as that suspect individual and decide that this is or is not the same person. Secure Flight is a better way of doing things. Better, but not perfect, and I don’t believe you will be able to point out where any member of the TSA has said that it is. Demanding perfection, by either yourself or RB, is not reasonable. Honesty is the best policy.

Submitted by TSORon on

RB said...
A question asked and gone unanswered;

What issues does TSA have with "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution?
---------------------------------
The answer is on the label of the product. Take a moment and read it.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"Since TSA engages in the illegal censorship of political speech..."

If what they are doing is illegal then sic the law on 'em.

Problem solved.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anon1:

I have read about Paul Ekman.

He studied detecting people lying.

Not the loftier goals of the SPOT program.

He said it was a rare talent some people have.

Nowhere have I seen him claim that he can teach these skills.

If these skills can be taught (outside of natural talent and years in the field as a law enforcement officer or such) then the success of that teaching can be tested and measured.

Some of us would like to see some sort of empirical data that shows this program is not a waste of time, effort and money.

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSORon said:

there are limits to what can can done and what cannot to make any system 100% accurate. ... Secure Flight is a better way of doing things. Better, but not perfect, and I don’t believe you will be able to point out where any member of the TSA has said that it is. "

But Blogger Bob said:

"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. "

Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?

Submitted by Bubba on

Anon1,

I'm sure you understand there is no way you can compare your own personal observations regarding poker faces to the extensive and detailed critique specific to the SPOT program uncovered in Nature, the leading scientific journal in the World!

Submitted by RB on

TSORon said...
RB stated…
So the end result for the child is exactly the same for her, she is considered to be on the NFL.

Such a simple concept you seem unable to grasp.
------------
Your comment is a bit obtuse RB. It is not TSA’s fault that the young lady has the same name as another individual who’s name is on the list, and that this other person presents a risk to civil aviation. I guess you could say that she is just an unlucky young lady that has another complication in her life. “Same name” problems have been present throughout the history of mankind, TSA is not the cause of this nor does any reasonable person expect the TSA to have an infallible answer for it.

..................
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.

Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?

Submitted by RB on

HappyToHelp said...
RB said...
"How about a biggie; why are all of those dangerous liquids confiscated by TSA at checkpoints just tossed into common garbage as if they were not potentially dangerous?"

Good question RB. Nico answered this question back in 2009.
A clip from “What happens to your prohibited items?”
A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.


We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.


That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico

..................
So that would mean that TSA's insistance that a single component LGA weapon is a fallacy, correct?

And if the weapon is a multi-component device would you not have both components in the trash bins anyhow?

The answer given by Nico is of about the same quality that WBI Strip Search Machine images are suitable for the cover of Readers Digest.

No one believed that answer either!

Submitted by RB on

TSM, Been here... said...
Quoted:
"Why did you promptly pass along Thomas's post praising a TSA employee who treated him with basic human decency while completely ignoring the comment I posted regarding the agent at Logan who was doing literally nothing besides shouting something along the lines of "DISPOSE OF ALL BEVERAGES OR WE WILL DISPOSE OF THEM FOR YOU!"? Would it be so hard to let a supervisor at Logan know that it might be a good idea to issue a reminder about appropriate behavior and demeanor at the checkpoint?"
-----------------------
Uh, maybe because that agent was actually DOING NOTHING WRONG!!! While I agree that we should strive to avoid yelling at passengers,
................
Well there's the problem, TSA managers, and I use the word manager loosely, thinks yelling at citizens is a workable policy.

Submitted by HappyToHelp on

RB said…
“So that would mean that TSA's insistance that a single component LGA weapon is a fallacy, correct?”

You seem confused on the planned device for the 2006 liquid bomb plot. Do a case study of that plot, and the current situation will be clearer to you.
Start with these news articles.
The drink bottle that could have downed a plane

Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people

I’m not sure where you got your misinformation from. Just a word of advice RB, you may not want to take your bomb advice from the FT bomb experts.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSORon said...
"The answer is on the label of the product [Clear Care brand contact lens solution]"

TSORon, since you seem to know the answer to the question why don't you just answer the question? Why play games?

Please, spare us a trip to a store to find this product and read a label we may not understand.

Why are passengers carrying Clear Care an issue? Why are they having problems? Why does the TSA not talk to us in a straight forward way about this issue?

Why is this question that has been asked by others not being answered?

Telling us to "look at the label" is another non-answer.

Submitted by TSM West on

Flight Medic said
Again Bob after repeated incidents like this why should i trust TSA at all or ever?? or is this another case, that is "isolated" and doesnt reflect on the " xxK other employees".

that line of side stepping responsibility doesnt work because this seems to be a reoccurring basis. And TSA employees wonder why i ask for a LEO if my bag with my medications gets checked, its examples like this and having stopped a attempted palming of meds more then once.
-----------------------------------
Get a life
You hear about it only because it's TSA. You don't hear about the multi million people each day that get caught with illegal drugs because it's not news. Noone is trying to palm your meds. If that were true you would be bragging about the TSA employee you had arrested. Maybe those meds are just making you paranoid.

Submitted by TSM/West on

RB said
Bob, you have stated any number of times that NO children are on the NO FLY LIST so why would anything need fixing?

Are you going to retract the NO Children on the NFL statements and admit that DHS has place defenseless children on these list?
-----------------------------------
Theres nothing to admit. No children are on the no fly list. Children may have names of others on the no fly list. The fact is that it's a name.

Submitted by Anonymous on

from RB
The why was the childs travel plans interrupted Mr. Security Expert TSORon?
-----------------------------------
Probably because the airlines didn't do their part

Submitted by TSORon on

Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?
---------------------------------------
RB said...
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.

Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?
---------------------------------------
Maybe TSA should have had you build the system, then we all know it would be 100% perfect, right?
What is it you think that they are being accused of there RB? Being a risk? Well heck guy, chainsaws are a risk, as are cars, motorcycles, and lollipops. No law against something being a risk, or someone. But I'm not going to use a chainsaw on concrete, or attempt to drive a car or motorcycle across the pacific ocean, or use a lollipop to stop an armed robbery.
Nor would I allow someone who is a risk to civil aviation access to a jet liner. And denying a person who is such a risk access to a commercial aircraft does not harm them or mark them as a criminal, nor does it impinge on their civil rights. So, as long as you are not on the list then you have nothing to worry about.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...
Anon1:

I have read about Paul Ekman.

He studied detecting people lying.

Not the loftier goals of the SPOT program.

He said it was a rare talent some people have.

Nowhere have I seen him claim that he can teach these skills.

If these skills can be taught (outside of natural talent and years in the field as a law enforcement officer or such) then the success of that teaching can be tested and measured.

Some of us would like to see some sort of empirical data that shows this program is not a waste of time, effort and money.

___________________________________

I suggest you actually read some of Paul Ekman’s work. It has less to do with “detecting people lying” and is more of a study in cataloging universal human facial expressions and how they relate to emotions. Smile=Happy…ect, but obviously on a much more detailed level (especially when he gets into micro-expressions).

Again if you had read his work you would know that although he dose state that some people are naturally better at detecting emotions it is a skill he believes can be learned.

He not only claims that he can teach these skills he is actually involved in an advisory capacity in multiple programs, including SPOT, which have exactly that goal.

In regard to testing these skills, as I have stated in my previous post, it is very difficult to administer a test in a controlled environment that can actually measure this ability. For these skills to be used to their full extent the subject you are observing must be under a considerable amount of stress. Simply having someone lie with no consequence to being found out and seeing how many times an individual trained in these skills can tell is a total pointless and invalid assessment of these skills.

As I have also stated that I think in a real life situation of an individual attempting an act of terrorism the stress levels of that individual would be so high that your average person would notice something off about them (as seen in the past with the incident in Florida). If I have any qualms about this program it’s that the TSA is apparently only training a few of their staff with this skill.

Anon1

Submitted by Anonymous on

Another week has gone by and still no update on the amputee situation.

I guess Bob is still waiting for the problem to go away on its own. :(

But I digress, I'd like to post another shining example of the well trained professional staff that is the TSA:

From FT:
"PWM TSA screener barks "Remove your knee brace because it is setting off our alarm" to me."

Submitted by Anonymous on

Can i bring a straightener, curling iron and blow dryer on my carry on ??

Submitted by RB on

TSORon said...
Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?
---------------------------------------
RB said...
Same name problems are outdated not that Secure Flight is operational.

Besides that if a person is a risk to civil aviation why not arrest the person and let the legal system take care of the problem? You know like what our constitution calls for; being able to face your accusers?
---------------------------------------
Maybe TSA should have had you build the system, then we all know it would be 100% perfect, right?
What is it you think that they are being accused of there RB? Being a risk? Well heck guy, chainsaws are a risk, as are cars, motorcycles, and lollipops. No law against something being a risk, or someone. But I'm not going to use a chainsaw on concrete, or attempt to drive a car or motorcycle across the pacific ocean, or use a lollipop to stop an armed robbery.
Nor would I allow someone who is a risk to civil aviation access to a jet liner. And denying a person who is such a risk access to a commercial aircraft does not harm them or mark them as a criminal, nor does it impinge on their civil rights. So, as long as you are not on the list then you have nothing to worry about.

July 8, 2010 11:04 PM

...................
Why does checking someones identity matter if TSA screens the people for WEI anyhow?

As for as designing Secure Flight, I think a toddler could have done as good a job as whoever created it.

The problem with Watch Lists is that we don't know what we are being accused of, nor why. DHS/TSA won't tell a person why they are on a list nor provides a workable method to challenge being on a list.

If DHS/TSA takes any action depriving a person of their liberty, including travel, without due process then they have had their civil rights violated.

If a person is dangerous to civil aviation why not just have them charged with a crime and let the justice system resolve the problem?

That would be the American way, something that seems foreign to TSA.

Submitted by RB on

As I have also stated that I think in a real life situation of an individual attempting an act of terrorism the stress levels of that individual would be so high that your average person would notice something off about them (as seen in the past with the incident in Florida). If I have any qualms about this program it’s that the TSA is apparently only training a few of their staff with this skill.

Anon1

July 9, 2010 2:00 AM
....................
GAO seems to disagree and has stated that TSA has not properly studied Behavior Detection and cannot justify the expense of the program.

I'll trust GAO's opinion on this.

Submitted by Bubba on

Anon1,

Did you ever consider the possibility that a real terrorist might not be incredibly nervous because this person is brainwashed and believes to be doing a good thing? They may be even quite happy, thinking they are going to heaven, etc...

Also, did you know that there are medications, such as beta-blockers, that inhibit the symptoms of nervousness? They are frequently used by public speakers and musicians.

Most of all, the World's most prominent scientific journal questions the soundness behind the SPOT program, in a detailed, point by point analysis that includes references to the few works that could suggest some support to the program, such as the one you cite. They are all discredited as sound support for the SPOT program within that article. I suggest you read it. If you can answer all their criticism, you should write a paper for publication in Nature, and maybe then you can convince us! Until you do that, I'm sticking with the top scientific journal in the World, a more credible source than Anon1 on this blog.

Submitted by Anonymous on
We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.


That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico

And this reasoning has be shown to be faulty. Two people can go through security with bottles designed to leak. The bottles get thrown in the trash can, the contents leak, mix, and... explosion, poison gas, noxious smoke, whatever.

Not to mention the simple fact that, with modern miniaturization, a simple timer/detonator can be hidden up inside a bottle cap, and the bottle filled with something explosive. How much damage would a 2-liter bottle of gasoline do when it explodes next to the security line?

SO- if the bottle are Sooooooo dangerous we can't take them on board, then they absolutely NEED to be handled as if they are dangerous. Not just casually disposed of.
Submitted by Anonymous on

TSORon said...

Another Anonymous poster asked...
Ron, what does 100% matching of name, date of birth and gender mean to you?
---------------------------------------
It means that the TSA Secure Flight system is now matching 100% of passengers against the lists. 100% of them instead of 70%, or 68%, or 2% of passengers. Why, what do you think it means?

___________________________________

TSA says it matches 100% name, birth date and gender against the watch list.

so how does a child (and there are no children on the watch list) match unless her name, gender and BIRTH DATE matched?

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSM/West said:

"No children are on the no fly list. Children may have names of others on the no fly list. The fact is that it's a name."
------------------------------------

But Secure Flight also matches birth dates.

Apparently this child also had the same birth date as someone on the list.

But keep forgetting about that part and continue arguing there are no children on the list.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring.

Submitted by MoonDog on

is peanut butter a liquid? I traveled internationally recently and inadvertantly packed my peanut butter in carry on on return. I left Ukraine explaining what it was they were fine. I left Germany with it after explaining what it was. no one even opened the jar. I got to Chicago and couldnt take it home to Minneapolis with me. It wasnt a big expense or even that much left in the jar. so I said go ahead and toss it if its a problem. but since the TSA website says food in its packaging is ok I am wondering why my Peanut Butter wasnt ok? The attendant didnt open it or ask me to open it and you could see the peanut butter within through the jar. A little common sense within the TSA might be useful. in the absense of that, can you tell me if Peanut butter is forbidden?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Does the TSA plan on providing AIT sample images to the public of the same size and resolution that the screener sees?

Submitted by RB on

If DHS/TSA stupidity is off topic then I guess this post belongs here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/11/us-airspace-rules-irk-ca...

U.S. airspace rules irk Canada


"The American obsession with security has literally reached new heights of paranoia," said an editorial last week in the Calgary Herald. "The thought of the U.S. government denying boarding passes to travelers on outbound Canadian flights direct to Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, Jamaica or Havana is another example that the terrorists have won."

I want to congratulate DHS/TSA for making one of our (use to be) allies and enemy.

Perhaps the new "Dear Leader" can take a moment and tell us how ticking off our neighbors moves the security ball forward.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good.

Submitted by Anonymous on

If you have a complaint why not offer a different option, one that doesnt say just do away with it but a real alternative.

Submitted by Bubba on

Bob,

Why is this post considered on topic under the heading of internet access control, while many of our previous posts were cut for being off topic?



Bubba, still waiting for an answer to the extensive analysis in Nature criticizing the SPOT program.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...
Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring.

July 11, 2010 1:38 PM
....................

If you have read this blog since day one you would know that many suggestions have been freely given to TSA only to be ignored.

I offer another suggestion to TSA, get out of the airport security business because like most other government efforts TSA has screwed the proverbial pooch.

Oh, if you find this blog boring then why not find one more to your taste?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Oh, and what's this three-inches wide column thing you got going here. Makes stuff very hard to read.

Lack of quoting makes things hard to follow, as well.

I've seen homemade forum software that was better than this.

The Government in action, I guess.

Submitted by Dennis D'Amico on

Wife had spinal fusion surgery. 2 titanium bars - 8 screws. Is anything else needed - something from Physician. Xray? Read that personal search is needed. That's OK. Wondered, though, about coming back from England. What is required at Heathrow?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good.

July 12, 2010 4:52 PM
----------------------------------

Since the TSA has never caught a terrorist at a checkpoint in over 8 years nor has Canadian TSA (whatever it is called) I would say the screening measures are just as good.

What makes you think their security measures are any worse? Is it the fact that they don't hassle innocent passengers as much that causes you concern?

Submitted by Anonymous on

What does it take to get a response to a "Got Feedback?" submission? The first time I submitted one, last year, I received no response for several weeks until I posted here and Bob contacted the manager at the airport in question.

I submitted a fresh complaint last week on a different topic/airport and have yet to receive a response. Does anyone actually process the submissions or do they just go into a unread queue? Is a week of no acknowledgment considered normal, or should I wait several more weeks before assuming I was ignored like last time?

Submitted by Earl Pitts on

Figures I write a post and it errors out.

@Anon: "Why dont you people come up with some ways to fix things in a reasonable matter instead of just crying at things you dont agree with. I mean seriously grow up and find something better to do with your time then constantly blog about how bad the TSA is beacause honestly its boring."

Anon, how long have you been here? I've been here since the very beginning of this blog. I and many others have proposed solutions many times on this board. Many are good and reasonable measures. TSA ignores them. TSA has to be interested in getting suggestions and feedback in the first place. It doesn't care.

@Another Anon: "Oh, well.. If Canada is "Irked". Then by all means lets allow them to fly over. I mean, they have good hockey players and free healthcare, I have no doubt that their security measures are just as good."

This has got to be one of the most ignorant and condescending statements I've read in here in a very long time.

Considering CATSA mirrors TSA's policies and does what we do, just why shouldn't we trust them? Do we think they're stupid? Do we not trust our security, therefore we shouldn't trust theirs? Does the US have the monopoly on "good" (and I use that term loosely) security? Given the coziness of our nations on defense and intelligence, we have no reason not to trust them.

Given the abysmal failure that TSA has been proven to be (unless you think the GAO is lying too), how can the Canadians be sure that WE are providing adequate security so something doesn't happen in THEIR space? They can't. If we're going to play these stupid games, Canada can play them too. Canada would be well within its rights to put stupid rules on ex-US flights that transit their space. Given that the vast majority of ex-US flights bound for Asia or Europe transit Canadian space, they would be well within their rights.

I'd really love to see Canada put those rules on us or just close their airspace to us. DHS and TSA need to be knocked down a few pegs. They do not dictate global security policy, especially considering they have shown no ability to get ours right. If Canada did that to us, people here would be screaming bloody murder. So why is not a big deal that one of our closest allies and friends is irked by our stupidity affecting them?

Earl

Submitted by Bubba on

Bob,

Why did you delete the post I was quoting above? Kind of defeats the point of my post.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Cultural disconnect here, folks. "Irked" in Canadian-English means something roughly equivelant to "Extremely annoyed, almost ready to start cursing" in American-English.

Submitted by TSO87 on

MOONDOG: The restrictions are for liquid,gels,aerosoles and PASTE, peanut butter is classified as a paste soo no anything above 100ml is not allowed

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSO87 said...
MOONDOG: The restrictions are for liquid,gels,aerosoles and PASTE, peanut butter is classified as a paste soo no anything above 100ml is not allowed

July 14, 2010 9:37 AM
........................

"peanut butter is classified as a paste"

By whom?

Submitted by RB on

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-07-12-full-body-scanners_N.htm

Backlash grows vs. full-body scanners

"By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Many frequent fliers complain they're time-consuming or invade their privacy. The world's airlines say they shouldn't be used for primary security screening. And questions are being raised about possible effects on passengers' health"

Rest of the sotry at link provided.

................
So TSA, you have told us that 97% of the people accept the Strip Search Machines.

Did you post something that was not true again?

Submitted by Blogger Bob on

Regarding The Amputee Mommy Post:

We have reached out to the field and nobody is aware of this incident.

We have reached out to the blogger and have had no response as of yet.

If I learn anything else, I'll let you know.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Pages