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 This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.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

Anonymous said...
'There are people who CANNOT go through WBI due to physical issues'.
What physical issues are these?
I know for a fact that this does NOT apply in the UK. EVERYONE - NO EXCEPTIONS - who is randomly chosen for scanning is forced to go through a naked body scanner - refusal to be scanned = no flight. If it happens in the UK then it WILL be forced on all US passengers very soon too. Mark my word.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The UK forces everyone who is chosen through the naked body scanners - no exceptions. Their is no option of a metal detector/thorough pat-down. What this means in practice is of course that not only is privacy totally ignored, but people with serious disabilities are actually discriminated against in a most appalling way. If someone is paralysed and in a wheelchair then they will be unable to stand in a body scanner. Because there is no option of a pat-down in the UK, then that unfortunate passenger will NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY, through no fault of their own. This is clear discrimination. It is happening NOW in the UK, and it may well be about to happen in the US if the TSA remove the pat-down option and also force everybody through the naked scanners.

Submitted by Sandra on

To the two anonymous people who wrote about the UK making no exceptions to WBI, you need to know the following:

In the UK individuals are selected for WBI, unlike the US where the TSA is trying to force everyone through WBI. It is presumed that if you are in a wheelchair, walk with a cane or have some other visible physical disability, you will not be selected in the UK. Unfortunately, if you have no outward signs of a disability, i.e., range of motion issues, and are selected for WBI in the UK, you are apparently out of luck unless you have a doctor's note.

A question for the first anonymous poster: Have you seen with your own eyes an individual with a visible disability denied passage because they cannot go through WBI?

Submitted by RB on

Blogger Bob said...
We take situations like the one described by INCIID Mom very seriously. Our Customer Support Manager at DCA has reached out to INCIID Mom and spoken with her personally. As a parent I can completely understand how emotionally charged we can get when a child is upset. It’s human nature.

If anything can be learned from this event, it’s that we all need to communicate a little better.
...........................

If anything can be learned from this event, it's that TSA is incompetent!

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Ayn sez - "You should take it seriously, West. My goal is to publicize to many people that the TSA plans to strip search children."

I am not certain exactly what you are referring to. What do I need to take seriously and what are you responding to? Do you have me confused with H2H?

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

please post on why verifying if a woman is guilty of embezzlement has ANYTHING to do with the safety of an airplane....and why the TSA has any business checking into it..

Submitted by Anonymous on

"I am not certain exactly what you are referring to."

It's pretty clear he's referring to TSA screeners taking naked pictures of children at airports, West.

Submitted by Ayn R Key on

Yes, West, I erred and responded to Tim using your name.

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "It's pretty clear he's referring to TSA screeners taking naked pictures of children at airports, West."

Ayn sez - "Yes, West, I erred and responded to Tim using your name."

No problemo at all Ayn, I make mistakes from time to time as well. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something I was supposed to respond to! Take care.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

To Sandra

UK individuals are SELECTED for naked scans, but the criteria for selection is security classified. You state that you presume that 'if you are in a wheelchair, walk with a cane or have some other visible physical disability, you will not be selected'. I do not know whether people with physical disabilities are excluded from selection. There is no information that states that this is the case. I do not believe that disabled people are exempt, because it goes against what the government have stated, namely that to offer a pat-down would be to undermine security. What is someone was feigning disability to avoid a naked scan. Also, if disabled people were given special exemption from naked scanners, this would raise issues about discriminating against able-bodied people, or people with religious concerns. They could rightly argue that it was unfair for disabled people to be exempted from naked scanning, but for others with say religious issues to be virtually stripped naked. The important point is that either EVERYONE should have a choice of a pat-down to a naked scan, or NO-ONE should. It is a question of fairness. A policy of scanning apartheid would be very difficult to maintain, both morally and legally. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

Submitted by Sandra on

Anonymous wrote:

"UK individuals are SELECTED for naked scans, but the criteria for selection is security classified. You state that you presume that 'if you are in a wheelchair, walk with a cane or have some other visible physical disability, you will not be selected'. I do not know whether people with physical disabilities are excluded from selection...."

How, pray tell, are the disabled then to be scanned if they cannot stand up or hold their arms up?

If the UK is going to deny passengers travel on aircraft due to physical inability to stand in a cancer machine, then I urge all to avoid travel to and through the UK.

Submitted by Ayn R Key on
An infuriating search at Philadelphia International Airport

So the TSOs actually looked at the checks she was carrying, and said she was probably a forger because they were nearly sequential?

She said "that's my money" and the officer replied "it's not your money."

When she wouldn't explain the checks the TSOs told her she could tell a DA instead?

Interesting. I wonder if it will be commented on.
Submitted by Anonymous on

I agree Sandra, the UK government is totally out of order here.
With regard to how people are selected, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) state that 'it is by automated numerical random selection,or in response to evidence-based concerns about a passenger'. Disabled people would therefore be likely to be selected at some stage, and those that could not use the scanner would be prevented from flying and would lose the money they had paid for the flight.
I am aware that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) has sent a detailed representation to the government with its concerns about this policy. The policy has not been changed, and the government is unlikely to change it.
The DPTAC state,'There will from time to time be situations where an individual passenger with a specific disability may be physically or intellectually unable to use the scanner...this non-optional approach to the use of scanners will inevitably prevent some disabled passengers from travelling. This policy is discriminatory as it fails to provide for reasonable alternative means of carying out the necessary security checks'.
If the UK can behave like this, then the TSA will soon be following suit. Peoples legitimate concerns are being comletely ignored purely for scanner company profits.

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Ayn sez - "So the TSOs actually looked at the checks she was carrying, and said she was probably a forger because they were nearly sequential?

She said "that's my money" and the officer replied "it's not your money."

When she wouldn't explain the checks the TSOs told her she could tell a DA instead?

Interesting. I wonder if it will be commented on."

In the interest of clarity, the person (according to the linked story)stated the Police Officers made those statements.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anon said:
"What TSA is succeeding in keeping off of airplanes is the most dangerous item - people.
More and more of us are refusing to fly. Short hauls are all but dead - down 40%."
yes this is a great point im sure that its all TSA and has NOTHING to do with rising ticket prices and a bad economy.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I'm still waiting for a response to an incient I reported at Sea-tac - that after getting yelled at that my laptop needed to be in its own bin the TSA, the TSA officer proceeded to dump another passenger's sweater and fleece pullover on top of it - proving that 1) laptops do not have to be in a bin by themselves, 2) he was too lazy to get another bin 3) he was too lazy to ask who's laptop (there was nothing to indicate I and the other pax were together - another failure of spot, and 4) he has no concern for the security of paxs' belongings.

Submitted by Anonymous on

West, in the interest of clarity would you care to comment on why the TSO's were looking at her checks. I thought a new policy was implemented after Bierfedlt?

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "West, in the interest of clarity would you care to comment on why the TSO's were looking at her checks. I thought a new policy was implemented after Bierfedlt?"

I can not speak on what happened, why it happened or what the TSOs were doing. I was not there, do not know the full story and will not speculate on anything because of that. I merely pointed out that based on the article linked, the TSOs did not say what was being attributed to them.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Pair-a-Docs on

Sigh...

"Anonymous Kat said...

Good enough. I'll post here. The TSA has signs at airports and announcements in airports about no amounts of liquids or gels over three ounces, when the actual, legal, authorized amount is 100 milliliters,or 3.4 ounces. The TSA, as stated on this blog, has no intention of correcting these signs which provide misinformation.

So, I asked before, and I'll ask again. What am I supposed to do when I show up at a TSA security check point with my food in LEGAL 3.4 ounce / 100 milliliter containers, and some ill-trained or officious TSO points to these incorrect signs and tells me I have to throw my food out?

Call the supervisor? Yes, and then what do I do when the supervisor points to those same signs and tells me to throw my food out?

Call the air port manager? Right, and when S/HE points to the signs and tells me to throw my food out?

My food is medically required. It cannot be replaced in the secure area.

I intend to follow the CORRECT INFORMATION AS POSTED on both this blog and the TSA web site.

But tell me, why do I have to print out half your web site and carry it with me, and jump through hoops because the TSA will not provide the correct information to the public and its own officers?

And, once again, how do I keep a TSO from endangering my health and endangering my freedom to travel because they don't know the rules and the TSA won't post the correct rules in the airports?"

Simple, Kat... tell them it's medically required. If they give you trouble, ask for a Supervisor. If the Supervisor gives you trouble, ask for a Manager and tell him to refer to the SOP, your medically required liquids are permitted. However, if they're over the 3.4 ounce quantity, there will be additional screening. That's just how it is, if you comply and go through the screening, you'll be allowed to keep your medically necessary liquid and/or food items. If any anomalies are unable to be resolved via this screening process, you won't be taking the items with you. If you visited the tsa.gov website and looked at what can and can't go, you'd know this already. I can't excuse people whining about things when answers are readily available... so... do your research and quit whining.

Submitted by Anonymous on

There is one issue having to do with the full body scanners that TSA seems to be unreasonably coy about.
While I don't have any especially strong privacy/modesty problems with the procedure, I HATE HATE HATE the idea that my wallet, my cash, and, above all, my passport are to be separated from my person and out of my line of sight for the duration of the scan. What if my docs and/or bag have been picked up by another traveler by the time I get there to retrieve them? I would then instantly become an unidentified, penniless, and stateless person. I could not board my international flight. If this occurred in one forthcoming trip, my ultimate financial loss would approach $10,000. Would TSA reimburse me for this? I DON'T THINK SO.

When the NY Times Travel Columnist Joe Sharkey first described the full body scan procedure he said that people could carry wallet and passport with them, hold them above their heads, and submit them for physical appraisal by TSA personnel afterwards. However, I have never seen this confirmed anywhere. What is the official TSA line on this question? How do you respond to folks like me who find this a pernicious practice? Separating a person from his/her passport strikes me as beyond the pale.

Submitted by Anonymous on

GSOLTSO said...

I can not speak on what happened, why it happened or what the TSOs were doing. I was not there, do not know the full story and will not speculate on anything because of that.

------------------------------------

Yet in regards to another recent incident that you did not witness, you did decide to comment by saying:

"There is no excuse for a diatribe of that nature, much less the attitude that generates that type of speech. I certainly hope that some changes can be made to prevent things like this from happening to anyone else."

Why the two different stances?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I can not speak on what happened, why it happened or what the TSOs were doing. I was not there, do not know the full story and will not speculate on anything because of that.
******
But you will use the article to defend a TSO. So if the quote about what the police said is accurate that means the entire article is accurate. Next time West maybe it would be better if you didn't say anything until the investigation report is issued.

Submitted by Anonymous on

In relation to disabilities and body scanners, there is an interesting article in the Homeland Security Newswire, 22 March 2010 entitled 'TSA: Full-body scanners safe for prostheses'.
In the article Jim Fotenos of the TSA states that 'prosthetic devices, artificial limbs, and surgically replaced body parts will not show up on the body scan image'.
If this is true (if it is not then why is Mr Fotenos lying?)then:

it completely contradicts the official line of the TSA;
and if the scans do not show up very obvious things like artificial limbs, then how can they possibly detect much less obvious and real threat items like liquid explosives?

This deliberate peddling of misinformation does nothing to engender trust in the truthfulness and the integrity of the TSA.

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "But you will use the article to defend a TSO. So if the quote about what the police said is accurate that means the entire article is accurate. Next time West maybe it would be better if you didn't say anything until the investigation report is issued."

Actually, I used the article to correct a misquote. Comments were atrributed to the TSOs when the article indicated the comments were made by the LEO. I will refrain from commenting on other things that happened for my previously stated reasons.

West
TSA blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

"I will refrain from commenting on other things that happened for my previously stated reasons."

West
TSA blog Team

-----------------------------------
West,

This is obviously a new position you are taking. Back in January you had this to say about a different incident you did not witness

Things like this are completely unacceptable. Most of us enjoy a good joke, or laugh with coworkers or friends, this was not even remotely in that realm. This person should be charged under applicable laws (if the victim is willing to press charges). I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "West,

This is obviously a new position you are taking. Back in January you had this to say about a different incident you did not witness"

Ahhhh, you must be referring to this thread:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/01/what-happened-in-philadelphia.html

Where the agency made a statement that essentially this is unacceptable behavior, and I commented much the same. What is your point? That I did say this is unacceptable behavior, and that the agency was denouncing the incident as unacceptable? I hate it when passengers have bad experiences, which is why I ask many people to submit comments to Talk To TSA, or at the least a comment card at the checkpoint. This helps us as an organization to gather more feedback from more sources and try to foster positive change for the agency.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

GSOLTSO said:

i>that essentially this is unacceptable behavior, and I commented much the same. What is your point? That I did say this is unacceptable behavior/i>

What is my point?

Why won't you say the recent situation is also an example of unacceptable behavior by the TSO's?

Why in this case are you saying you won't comment because you weren't there?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"I hate it when passengers have bad experiences . . ."

But it's what we've all generally come to expect dealing with TSOs, particularly at major airports. The one exception I can think of was at PHL in February when everyone was trying to get out ahead of a snowstorm - the TSOs were very good about trying to get us all through efficiently (even if they were still enforcing their arbitary, ridiculous rules).

BTW, I was in line at PHL in June 2009 when a braindead TSO (almost an oxymoron) made an announcement that those of us wearing sneakers had to go to Terminal B - "Just kidding!"

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "GSOLTSO said:

i>that essentially this is unacceptable behavior, and I commented much the same. What is your point? That I did say this is unacceptable behavior/i>

What is my point?

Why won't you say the recent situation is also an example of unacceptable behavior by the TSO's?

Why in this case are you saying you won't comment because you weren't there?"

Because I do not have nearly as much information in this case. I am sorry that the person mentioned in this case had a bad experience, but I do not have enough information to comment about what has happened. It is as simple as that.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "But it's what we've all generally come to expect dealing with TSOs, particularly at major airports. The one exception I can think of was at PHL in February when everyone was trying to get out ahead of a snowstorm - the TSOs were very good about trying to get us all through efficiently (even if they were still enforcing their arbitary, ridiculous rules).

BTW, I was in line at PHL in June 2009 when a braindead TSO (almost an oxymoron) made an announcement that those of us wearing sneakers had to go to Terminal B - "Just kidding!"


I hate that passengers have bad experiences, I always give them the same advice - file commentary with Talk To TSA, fill out a comment card at the airport when something happens. Any time we as an organization can recieve more feedback from passengers, it can be used to foster positive change for the agency. By submitting the commentary through TTT, it also moves the conversation from the passenger and the folks at the checkpoint, to another venue (namely to a customer feedback person). I hope that in your future travels you have good experiences, of failing that, at leat neutral experiences. Take care.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

GSOLTSO said

"Because I do not have nearly as much information in this case...It is as simple as that.

But that is not the reasoning you originally used.

What additional information do you need? What additional information did you have in the other cases?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Can you tell me how TSA would deal with my bring baggies of flour mix through security. My daughter is Celiac and we have to make all our own flour mixes for things like breads , pancakes, etc. I've been afraid to bring them on my carry-on luggage for fear they will mistake them for drugs or something.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Question, can I bring a bag of tobacco and a smoking pipe (like the ones used by some grandpas) in a flight from FL to Puerto Rico? It would be a sealed store-purchased bag bought at one of the big pharmacy chains. I am asking because I know that it tobacco products are not allowed to be shipped through the U.S. mail. Thank you

Submitted by Feelingelephants on

Wow, Bob, you are way calmer than I would be--thanks for doing a thankless communications job.

I had a quick question about etiquette, though it may be out of date. Who does a traveler go to to report unprofessional conduct from a PrimeFlight employee at SFO?

I describe the late August 2007 SFO incident in full here: http://ow.ly/2tamX (and why I didn't report it at the time).

I know I was being a bit of a teenaged dork but, as I note in that post, I was unable to report the incident at the time because I was told by the TSA supervisor to talk to my airline representative about filing a complaint, and my airline representative told me they had no way for me to do that.

So, who should I have gone to?

Thanks again for your work,

Jessica Dickinson Goodman

Submitted by RB on

http://janeproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/homeland-security-tsa-and-police...


"The Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Safety Administration (a/k/a "TSA") has reached a new low. Kathy Parker, 43, alleges that TSA personnel illegally invaded her privacy during a preflight security screening at Philadelphia International (PHI) on August 8.

Parker says the TSA screener/s removed retail receipts and other papers from her wallet and read them (while telling her they were looking for razor blades), needlessly embarrassed her by removing and openly displaying prescription medications from her handbag, and then, after "inspecting" negotiable instruments (i.e. checks) that were also in her wallet, conferred with on-hand Philadelphia police. One of the officers then attempted to confiscate said checks without process or paperwork, telling her that he suspected her of embezzlement. When she protested, she says he told her "It's not your money." *

According to Parker, she was only allowed to collect her belongings and board the plane after half an hour of humiliation and interrogation because she eventually handed over her husband of 20 years' cell number and authorities called him regarding the possibility of Parker attempting to "empty their bank account" due to "a divorce situation." * "
..........................

Can anyone at TSA explain just why TSA employees are searching peoples personal papers and under what authority they are doing so?

Submitted by RB on

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-admits-to-punishing-travelers/

TSA admits to punishing travelers
by Charlie Leocha on August 23, 2010


However, when meeting with privacy officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA later that month, I was told unofficially that there were two standards of pat-downs. One for the normal situation where passengers are going through metal detectors and a different pat-down for those who refuse to go through the whole-body scanners.

With this latest announcement, TSA admits that it has been clandestinely punishing passengers for refusing to go through the invasive whole-body scans with an even more intrusive aggressive pat-down and that soon those more invasive pat-down will creep from airport to airport.

...............
Using the word "Integrity" and "TSA" in the same sentence just became impossible.

It seems that if TSA can't look at naked little children with their Porno Machines they will just feel 'em up with open hands.

This improves aviation security how?

Who's in charge at TSA a bunch of PERVERTS?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I find it almost funny that everyone here blames the TSA staff for are their flight hardships. They don't make the policies, they make a living. The staff are doing their job. I don't agree with a lot of these policies of liquids, nail clippers, and the like, but the TSA are the last people to blame. Most of the TSA's at my local airport are perfectly civilized, friendly, and professional, making an effort to move the line along while making sure the public is stays safe. It's a difficult job, but someone has to do it.

Submitted by RB on

I'm a little confused why TSA has instituted new pat down procedures using the palm of the hand to fondle breats, penises and such.

I thought that was sexual assualt!

You TSA employees should really be proud of yourselves.

First using Strip Search Machines to look at little kids naked and now you are just feeling them up.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why do you think people who buy airline tickets deserve to be sexually assaulted?

Submitted by Ayn R Key on

Anonymous wrote:
I find it almost funny that everyone here blames the TSA staff for are their flight hardships. They don't make the policies, they make a living. The staff are doing their job.

That's called the "Nuremberg defense", in which a person tries to excuse any violation of another person by pleading "I was just doing my job."

When I was in the military, they instructed us on the topic of "unlawful orders". We are theoretically encouraged to disobey and report all unlawful orders. If my commander ordered me to rob a bank, I not only could refuse but should report him to his commander.

Yes, the TSOs are just doing their job, and that is no excuse for what they are doing. They, as the front line enforcement, have the power to say "that rule is unjust and unlawful, therefore I will not do it." TSOs are not hired based on a capacity for rational thought and respect for other people but instead on the willingness to blindly follow any order no matter how insane.

Yes, there are plenty of friendly TSOs who, with a smile, say "sorry but you cannot bring that water bottle through here". That doesn't change that they are implementing a senseless rule and confiscating your property in violation of the 5th amendment to the constitution.

Yes, I said "confiscating". It's the right word. Too bad.

More TSOs should check out Oath Keepers where soldiers and police have taken an oath to obey their oath to the constitution and never enforce an unconstitutional order. So far I think that there are no TSOs who are members, which is unfortunate for the public.

TL:DR version - "just following orders" is no excuse.

Submitted by Ayn R Key on

RB wrote:
I'm a little confused why TSA has instituted new pat down procedures using the palm of the hand to fondle breats, penises and such.

It was the only way they could think of to make the pat down worse than it already was, in order to "encourage" everyone to go to the pervert strip search machine.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Bob -- were is the post about the two recent incidents about TSAs harassment of photographers at two separate airports here recently?

Or do I need to add that content to a new website and blog launching this week to highlight the egregious and as some deem illegal actions by tsa toward it's customers?

Submitted by George on

@RB: I'm a little confused why TSA has instituted new pat down procedures using the palm of the hand to fondle breats, penises and such.

Not to worry. Blogger Bob is probably at a classified meeting with the TSA Propaganda Department right now, expertly crafting just the right spin to neutralize this latest embarrassing revelation.

I'd bet on a post about how the secret SOP explicitly prohibits both the touching of sensitive areas and retaliatory abuse. So the allegations of abusive or retaliatory pat-downs are merely the unfounded complaints overly-critical people who want to make the TSA look bad. And, of course, a reminder that the easiest way to avoid this kind of incident is simply to step into the safe, family-friendly Advanced Imaging Technology machine that protects privacy while it protects aviation.

Or could we be overdue for a puppy post?

Submitted by RB on

More TSOs should check out Oath Keepers where soldiers and police have taken an oath to obey their oath to the constitution and never enforce an unconstitutional order. So far I think that there are no TSOs who are members, which is unfortunate for the public.

TL:DR version - "just following orders" is no excuse.

August 24, 2010 1:16 PM
...............
I doubt any TSA employee has the morals to join Oath Keepers.

Submitted by Bubba on

Bob,

I´m still waiting for an answer to that article in Nature, the top scientific journal, saying SPOT has no scientific basis.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Admittedly I'm a bit behind the times, since I have a question about the blog entry from January that discussed the whole-body imaging systems. That article states that "the procurement specifications require these machines be capable of functioning in both a screening operation environment at the airport, and in a test mode environment... As you can imagine, the ability to store, export and print are crucial in a testing environment."

My imagination must not be all that good, as I would imagine that the imaging systems used in testing and training would be done in exactly the same manner as they would be in real-world operation. You don't test and train one way and expect complete proficiency if you operate in another way. What possible need could you have in a testing environment to export and/or print images when you would have people believe there would never be such a need in real-world production? Furthermore, those capabilities can't be completely free, so why would you pay for a feature set you admit you will never need in the real world?

The same blog entry also states "[t]here is no way for Transportation Security Officers in the airport environment to place the machines into test mode." How do you guarantee that? Is the portion of the machine which performs export, storage, and/or printing physically removed from the unit? If you're disabling it in some other way, e.g., by some software-based control like requiring administrator privileges, then you can't possibly guarantee control.

The blog entry has one blatant error. It says "these machines are not networked, so they cannot be hacked." This is untrue if any human being has access to the hardware. This is why I state above that physical removal of the hardware responsible for unnecessary functionality should not even be present. Sealing all equipment cases, putting epoxy in USB ports, and other forms of hardware isolation should be performed, and regular, unscheduled audits of any mitigating controls like these should be performed by a third party.

In the meantime, until you correct these problems, I think I'll continue to fly without ID and opt for a more traditional search.

Submitted by RB on

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-new-tsa-pat-down,0,5189028.story


LOS ANGELES -- Travelers could soon face an unpleasant choice at the airport -- an invasive full-body scan, or being groped by security screeners.

Full-body scanners have been criticized because they essentially reveal a naked image of the passenger.

So the TSA is testing a more complete manual pat down as an alternative to the scans at some airports.

The pat-down involves a front-of-the-hand body search. Typically, pat-downs are done with the back of the hand.

The initial response from some passengers who have experienced the new pat-down is shocking.

One flier said his entire genital area was probed. He remarked that, "If anybody ever groped me like that in real life, I would have punched them in the nose."
...........................
Good job TSA workers, now your sexually assualting people.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
I am writing this blog regarding the hiring practices of the TSA with hope the issues I have faced will be corrected and no individual will have to go through the unfortunate and unfair course of events I have faced seeking employment with this agency. ........

.........In a leadership position, such as the Director of the Transportation Security Administration, one would hope an individual’s effort to correct what has been done and protect their rights for equal opportunity would be valued not condemned.

July 21, 2010 9:22 PM
______________________________
So what the heck are you even talking about and why should we care?

Submitted by Ponter on
LOS ANGELES -- Travelers could soon face an unpleasant choice at the airport -- an invasive full-body scan, or being groped by security screeners.

Another biased media story that serves no purpose other than to denigrate the TSA. It seems to be more important to reel in the "eyeballs" for advertisers with lurid sensational fiction than to help unite the public behind the TSA's fight to protect us from people who seek to kill Americans.

The biased media and the handful of ignorant complainers are ignoring the facts. The TSA has assessed the current threat environment and concluded that a more thorough search of all passengers was necessary. They carefully studied the available technology and decided that AIT scanners were the best approach.

The TSA is strongly committed protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all passengers. They carefully developed screening procedures that take every possible measure to protect privacy. The officers who view the scans are located away from the checkpoint, and the AIT software blurs passengers' faces so that their identity can never be discerned. And contrary to the biased media accounts, the operating procedures include stringent measures to guarantee that no officer is able to record images of the scans in any way. National Security concerns preclude the public from reviewing those procedures for themselves, but the fact that they exist should provide all the confidence anyone needs that the TSA is absolutely committed to protecting the privacy of every passenger.

The TSA is also aware that some passengers may have concerns about AIT, especially since it has been so unfairly misrepresented in the biased media and by ignorant bloggers. So the operating procedure gives passengers the option of a pat down search on request. But that pat down needed to be enhanced to make it as effective as AIT. Otherwise, it would just provide a way for people who seek to kill Americans to avoid detection. That seems to be what people are complaining about. It's not "sexual harassment." It's not retaliation. It's merely a NECESSARY AND EFFECTIVE ENHANCEMENT to make the pat down equivalent to AIT. The TSA's operating procedure explicitly prohibits harassment, retaliation, or any mistreatment of passengers, so that is never tolerated. The important thing is that you have choices, so if you find the pat down unacceptable you can simply walk through the AIT scanner.

Pages