TSA agents now allowed to cop a feel

[Alyeska]

Zed, does the TSA have procedures in place for issuing receipts for confiscated items? Say you accidentally bring a pocket knife to the airport. Can TSA issue a receipt so you can claim it back at a later time?

[Norade]

What about receipts for damaged historical documents? I'm sure that Thanas would be much happier flying to the US if he could be assured that damage caused by the TSA's gross incompetence would be covered.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ars Technica has an article on this. Further information from The Atlantic. There are heavy suspicions that the new pat-down procedure is deliberately intended to embarass people into opting for the high-tech option instead.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... tdowns.ars

Am I a bad person for getting a kick out of stupid people being manipulated into doing the right thing?

If not, this would make my day.

[Zed Snardbody]

Zed, does the TSA have procedures in place for issuing receipts for confiscated items? Say you accidentally bring a pocket knife to the airport. Can TSA issue a receipt so you can claim it back at a later time?

Technically nothing is confiscated. Yes, I know this is an argument in semantics. But while there is case law for allowing administrative and special circumstance searches, this is no such president for seizures.

Unless we come across something like a firearm or knife (switchblade or butterfly) that is an actual local crime to posses you always have the option to be escorted out of the sterile area as its called and check it in, mail it, turn it over to someone else, throw it out, whatever. Everything we come into possession of is voluntarily surrender to us.

In the even we do come across a firearm or a switchblade it goes out of our hands into the hands of local law enforcement. Here in Nevada where I work, even a firearm illegal concealed in a bag is only a misdemeanor and LVMPD will typically only write you a ticket for the violation and allow you take it to you car to lock away.

Now I will admit that a lot of TSA officers have fallen into the bad habit of not giving all the options and just asking if someone wants to surrender it or give it up and go. A lot of people knee jerk and just say yes without considering that they can check it in or usually mail it. Theres only a few things that you can't mail or check in that honestly you're kind of screwed with that you pretty much have to surrender because there is nothing else to do with it.

[RogueIce]

What about checked baggage? Is there anything there that you can not have that wouldn't have you arrested anyway (like a bomb or something)? Or is anything "confiscated" from checked baggage just out and out theft?

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Zed:

One problem, I think, is that the TSA doesn't seem to have picked up from the police the tradition that someone they catch carrying contraband must be 'read their rights.' If the fellow doing the search feels no obligation to tell you you have a right to mail your items or check them in baggage or whatever, most people simply aren't going to know, and the fact that the regulations allow it is irrelevant.

[Zed Snardbody]

Honestly I don't know I'm not baggage certified so I don't know how its handled.

I'm going to take a guess at it and will actually follow up on it when I can pull the baggage standard operating procedure tomorrow (maybe).

Certain things are not permitted in checked baggage. Uncassed firearms, lose ammunition, hazardous material. Some airports still maintain their baggage screening in nodes where the bags are checked then and their then put onto the airport baggage handling system. If there is something in the bag that needs to be looked at or interdicted the person is still standing there or can be retrieved quickly.

In a major airport most of the baggage search is conducted with an automated inline system where the primary screening is automated. http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/eds.shtm (I hate to link to the civil website, there is a major credibility issue with our agency and will refrain from pointing you right at the website as much as I can.)

Because most people are not packing explosives the searches that result from this are usually resolved with the bag sent on its way with a notice of inspection.

Also, going into a bag has very specific guidelines. Once I determine that your bag is an issue because you left a nice dense jar of peanut butter in there, i cant go digging around in your folded pants pockets to see if you have pot or kiddie porn. However if when I open your bag and you've got a brick of shrink wrapped white powder I'm compelled to up channel that since its in plain view.

Now here is the part I'm not sure on. If you have say a gallon of bleach which is hazmat and cant be transported in checked baggage and for whatever reason we can't contact you. Its either one or two, again I'm not sure and will check. Either the bleach or other object is pulled from the bag and the bag sent on its way and turned over to the airline since at that point its an FAA issue, or the entire bag is pulled and your left trying to get it back from the airline somehow.

Since the primary focus in checked baggage is explosives since a gun even if it is uncased isn't going to pose much of a threat to an aircraft, most of these issues don't exist with inline systems now.

In fact it has become an issue in inter-agency cooperation on certain occasions since we couldn't legally go into a bag when other agencies wanted us too.

[Zed Snardbody]

Re: Zed:

One problem, I think, is that the TSA doesn't seem to have picked up from the police the tradition that someone they catch carrying contraband must be 'read their rights.' If the fellow doing the search feels no obligation to tell you you have a right to mail your items or check them in baggage or whatever, most people simply aren't going to know, and the fact that the regulations allow it is irrelevant.

You're preaching to the converted honestly. We have a lot of people in the agency that are ex military and ex police and some like me that are just civil libertarians that have a sour taste in our mouth because HQ down right refuses to standardize what we say, and when we say it. We have an internal forum where we have asked repeatedly to have the "miranda" of our job put in black and white so we know exactly what to say, and for those like me in leadership have something to point at to our officers and go "no, you're doing to wrong, this is what you say everytime."

There are somethings I honestly refuse to take part in because I'm not comfortable with how they're conducted. A lot of us carry professional liability insurance.

[LMSx]

Right, the thing is TSA security's not really smartly done. If someone was really determined to smuggle a weapon through the security all these measures won't help much.

Jeff Goldberg had some good points about the fluffy crap we call airport security:

This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.

I draw three lessons from this week's experience: The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners "bangled" contraband up their asses. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked.

The second lesson is that the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.

The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.

[Alyeska]

While the security line itself can be a target, airplanes offer the unique opportunity of being a further weapon. An airplane isn't exactly like a bus or a subway. Some extra protection is a good thing. What needs to be done is smart protection.

[Spoonist]

The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.

The point that person is trying to make is not in line with the rest of his sentiment. While I think it could be universally agreed that some of the procedures are inadequate and that a plot spoiled before is the absolute preference. But it is still true that the more difficult it is to bring weapons on board the longer they need to spend planning and plotting giving that much more time to catch them before the act.
If there would be no checks at all (ad absurdum) there would be no point in them plotting together exposing themselves to rats and moles. So the more checks there are the more elaborate the plot must be to succeed.
Right now if you need liquid explosives that sets a bar right there that very few cells could meet on their own.
Add to this the awareness of the passengers and its really difficult to take a plane nowadays. (How many do you know about that was taken at checkpoints vs how many was taken by other passengers?)

What I find strange is that there are not more "random" stuff thrown in just to make things more complex at the checkpoints. As it is it is kind of static and predictable which makes it circumventable.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Alyeska

The problem there, I think, is that hijacking the airplane for kamikaze purposes adds a huge additional level of complexity over simply blowing up the airplane. All the attacks since 9/11 have been attempts to smuggle a bomb on board (typical individual loons, but the form of the attack is unchanged); that's what we're likely to see.

An attack against a security checkpoint would be a lot easier to execute than an attack against a plane, and we take zero special precautions to avoid that. That may well be a sign of messed up priorities, I think.

[Alyeska]

Re: Alyeska

The problem there, I think, is that hijacking the airplane for kamikaze purposes adds a huge additional level of complexity over simply blowing up the airplane. All the attacks since 9/11 have been attempts to smuggle a bomb on board (typical individual loons, but the form of the attack is unchanged); that's what we're likely to see.

An attack against a security checkpoint would be a lot easier to execute than an attack against a plane, and we take zero special precautions to avoid that. That may well be a sign of messed up priorities, I think.

I am aware of this. Which is why I was the first person to bring up this possibility in the thread.

[General Zod]

The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.

The point that person is trying to make is not in line with the rest of his sentiment. While I think it could be universally agreed that some of the procedures are inadequate and that a plot spoiled before is the absolute preference. But it is still true that the more difficult it is to bring weapons on board the longer they need to spend planning and plotting giving that much more time to catch them before the act.
If there would be no checks at all (ad absurdum) there would be no point in them plotting together exposing themselves to rats and moles. So the more checks there are the more elaborate the plot must be to succeed.
Right now if you need liquid explosives that sets a bar right there that very few cells could meet on their own.
Add to this the awareness of the passengers and its really difficult to take a plane nowadays. (How many do you know about that was taken at checkpoints vs how many was taken by other passengers?)

What I find strange is that there are not more "random" stuff thrown in just to make things more complex at the checkpoints. As it is it is kind of static and predictable which makes it circumventable.

If I were a terrorist, I'd think the best way to circumvent all the security in place would be to get a few of my people hired on as TSA screeners. They'd have a much easier time smuggling in bits and bobs I'd need to blow something up if I were really intent on doing some damage.

[Spoonist]

If I were a terrorist, I'd think the best way to circumvent all the security in place would be to get a few of my people hired on as TSA screeners. They'd have a much easier time smuggling in bits and bobs I'd need to blow something up if I were really intent on doing some damage.

The TSA has some screening, but catering and cleaning usually has close to nothing.
Also just simply dressing up as crew has let repoerters get through security quite easily.
Etc.

Thankfully suicidal terrorism isn't a career choice that will attract the most rational of people so lets hope that remains true.

[Thanas]

What about receipts for damaged historical documents? I'm sure that Thanas would be much happier flying to the US if he could be assured that damage caused by the TSA's gross incompetence would be covered.

No, that one will never happen. Because you see, you actually waive all legal rights to sue the TSA once you board an airplane or "agree" to be searched.