TSA has Responded

[jdmack79]

So no enhanced imaging @ ORD?
Is this only for domestic flights?

I ask becuase my aunt was here from Mexico back in NOV and she told me she had to go thru the new x-ray machine (whole body image) at ORD but not in Mexico.

I had to go through the body scanner when I flew from O'Hare to Shanghai last year.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

OK - here's the notes from the conversation. For the record this person and I had a very cordial reasonable conversation. Both of us were completely civil, and on any other occasion we'd have sat down over a beverage or two and had a similar chat. We talked for the better part of an hour, and there's NO WAY I can write all that was discussed here. From what he said, he's the guy over the TSA in Indiana and I have no reason to doubt that.

My goal in this conversation was to a) make him aware of what was bugging me b) learn a little more about how the system worked and c) if I could see some reasonable constructive things that they could do - to present them.

First - the gentleman I spoke with was first and foremost exactly that. A gentleman. While I may have some disagreement with him, the last thing that I wanted to be was disagreeable.

Item a) was easy - it was already clear. I had the feeling that at first, he was going down his checklist of items that people have been yelling at TSA about. Once we got past that, it turned into a well thought out discussion of the issues that faced the TSA. I was sympathetic in that I feel that they are in a no-win situation. Some people are going to be pissed if they under-police things and others will be pissed that the over-policed things. And when the next one happens, it's ALWAYS their fault.

Stuff I learned: 1) The enhanced machines are there to catch non-metallic objects as well as metallic (duh). The likely reason that I got sent to a secondary search is because they saw (or thought) they saw "anomalies". Apparently, this is why they want EVERYTHING out of your pockets. In my case I HAD emptied my pockets. He didn't have a satisfactory explanation for what they might have "seen". From what I can tell, it appears to be an inexact science and if the guy in the back room is having a bad day, you're gonna get searched.
2) The folks in Indiana that work for TSA are being encouraged by this fellow to play consistently by the National Policies. I have seen stuff (good and bad) at other airports not under this gentleman's control that were less consistent. I also think that it IS a subjective thing - so if you catch someone on a bad day - the odds of them being a jackass with you goes up. The same is true of ANY profession that deals with the public.
3) Yes, airports can opt out of using the TSA - BUT TSA (VERY important here...) TSA controls the CONTRACTS with the private entity and NOT the Airport!!! I did NOT know that!. The part about them having to follow the same protocols in either case makes sense. But the TSA can effective dictate how may people that they use etc. The only real benefit to an airport of "opting out" according to him was that they could effectively get rid of a bad set of local TSA management by doing this. I have more thoughts on this - but I figured that I'll let people kick this info around before jumping in further.

He has a background in Law Enforcement - and this is honestly where my blood ran cold...

We had yakked all over the issue and discussed ALL SORTS of the nuances of the problem. It got down to the subject of the searches - I told him that if I was being searched "secondarily" for "cause", that I would feel a whole LOT better if they said - "You have something in your left pocket, or [whatever area of your body] - we need to check on that. There was no such explanation in my case. I suggested that in this country we take offense to being searched without "probable cause". I admitted that "probable cause" might not be the perfectly correct term, but that it was close enough to get my point across - ya gotta have a _reason_.
He then said that yes, it's a fine line that the TSA staff have to walk. I agreed. He then said that they conduct more "4th Amendment" searches per day that many police do in a year. HIS TERM NOT MINE. I asked him what he meant by the term. He said that TSA operates under congressional mandates and case law that give it a "public safety exception to the 4th Amendment". That is a direct quote. I bit my tongue until it bled. I hope to heaven what he meant was that the Courts in his opinion have said that these sorts of behaviors are "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment. If this is the attitude of the leaders I respectfully suggest that we're in trouble.

I suggested that I would like to change some of the policies that TSA was embarking on - since I saw them as misguided in some instances and an affront to our liberty in some cases. He suggested that the best way to do that is via your local member of Congress via their oversight power with the TSA.
I further explained that I felt that TSA could make their case better if they explained to people what they were looking for when they secondarily searched someone. I assured him that if my 16 year old daughter happened to be with me (and she's a lot better looking than I am!) there had better DAMN well be a good reason for such a search! He acknowledged that he couldn't argue with my reasoning there.


My opinions after listening to this gentleman:
1) He's reasonable, articulate and is trying to do his job. That does NOT mean that I agree with the policies that his superiors have laid down from Washington, DC.
2) The powers that be in Washington are out of control and need to be reined in...
3) The logical way to do this is to approach our local Congress critters and make sure that these issues are in front of them.
4) Our Constitution is indeed "hanging by a thread". Exception to the 4th Amendment, my ass.
5) We will get further by civil discourse than by angry speech or violent action.
6) If you don't think that your vote for Congress matters, please think again. If you love liberty and freedon and have thought of running for office - now is the time. You are needed.
7) TSA needs to be privatized in the worst way.


I have a lot more thoughts on this, and I'm sure that I have rambled on enough for now. There was a LOT more discussed. I have tried to be civil and reasonable in the conversation. Again, this gentleman was the same. While I may disagree with him all to heck in some areas, I cannot fault him for any lack of listening and engaging in an honest, intelligent conversation.

 

[jedi]

Thanks AP for your 4-1-1.
I have no comment to your final points because what I would say would get me tossed from the boards. Let me just say that I feel all hope has been lost.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Thanks for the update, I am glad to see someone was willing to take the time to talk to you. I personally have met a few really down to earth TSA people, two in IND and one in DEN..... if all TSA was like them most people would be happier when dealing with them I think. But I also have to remember that they deal with rude people all day long..... I personally think a lot (not all) of the anger over the searches is because of the additures that most TSA have. I know personally that when one starts to get edgy with me I start to get annoyed but again chances are they have delt with 20 or more rude individuals before I came along that day.

If you have not flown any red eye flights I have noticed that travel is a lot more pleasent with all parties involved in the process....... well untill you get to the plane haha.


I do think it should be privatized but on the flip side I don't think you could find GOOD security for the $12 an hour or whatever so taxes would probably go up and just like all the stuff with Blackwater and the complaints that have come out I know that people would still complain. Yeah you would probably be hasseld a bit less and searched a bit less but I honestly beleive not a lot would change...... Things would probaby be a little better yes but we have to stay realistic.

If you want to see people on edge though fly into MCI one day...... each gate (yes I said gate) is surrounded by glass walls and each gate has it's own TSA screening....... if I remember right you have to go back outside the secure area just to go to the bathroom........... I had never seen so many stressed out people in my life..... even people that work there say its bad.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

TD -

Agreed that it was refreshing to see someone willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner. Gotta give them credit for that.

I tend to agree that privatization is not the only answer - especially in light of who runs the contracts. Privatizing with the local airport operator in charge but having security checks and "oversight" by DHS might make more sense. That tends to err on the side of customer service rather than "shut up we're inspecting you". It would seem that Washington has been expanding its' role so greatly that they have crossed the line between REGULATION and OPERATION. And of course Reasonable Regulation has long since been left in the dust.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Thanks AP for your 4-1-1.
I have no comment to your final points because what I would say would get me tossed from the boards. Let me just say that I feel all hope has been lost.

I agree that our Constitution is being trampled upon on all fronts. And there's a long way to go to get it back to its rightful place. That said, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. And I don't think that that step need be explosive. We just each have to take action and turn the tide. I know that there are a lot of people who look at the distance and say that it's not possible. There are days that I share that sentiment. In spite of that, I don't see calm, rational discussion with our Congress critters as wasted effort. I guess if it turns out to be, then so be it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

OK - The bit about the "exception" to the 4th Amendment has been troubling me since he said it. I felt it necessary to email him back on the topic.

Mr. [Redacted] -

I really appreciated the call and discussion that we had yesterday. I better appreciate the challenges that TSA faces after our discussion. I learned a lot from the discussion - and I'm grateful for that. One thing that you said, though, troubled me greatly. I bit my tongue really hard when you said it, because I think that I know what you meant (or I sure hope I do), but it still troubled me greatly. You said that TSA operated under "an exception to the 4th Amendment" to the Constitution. You indicated that this was provided via "case law and Congressional statute" if I remember correctly. Something like that in any case. That one gave me some pretty big heartburn.

I am not a lawyer, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, sir. Please forgive the bad joke... And I am darn sure not an expert on the Constitution. In fact I'm just a business guy trying to make a living - and I have to commute to do it. That said, I'm not aware of ANY exceptions to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. I think what you MAY have meant was that Congress had passed a law to create TSA and that regulations had been decided and those regulations have not been declared UNconstitutional. And that they may have been tested in some cases around the country. Again, I'm no lawyer - so I'm definitely not familiar with any of the cases. Always willing to learn, but not familiar with them.

I cannot tell you enough that I appreciate you taking the time to call and discuss these issues with me. And I certainly hope that my civility and candor has matched the positive demeanor that you have showed as well. You are a credit to your organization and team.

Lastly - I would NEVER presume to tell you how to do your job any more than I would expect someone to tell me how to do mine. You mentioned that you are leading the people that you are responsible for to follow precisely the National policies that are being implemented. My occupation isn't very hazardous per se, but all occupations have their challenges. I suspect, sir, that one of them in your line of work must be the intellectual quandary that one can be placed in. When any of us embark in Federal service, I seem to recall taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.." In our conversation, sir, you struck me as a reasonable person, and one who takes his obligations seriously. You certainly mentioned taking passenger's lives and security seriously and I have no reason not to take you at your word. And as we discussed it can be a balancing act between the two (protecting lives vs. allowing liberties). At some point the searches would HAVE to be determined to be "unreasonable". Good people can disagree about where to draw that line, as we discussed.

As I mentioned above, the oath that all federal employees take is to defend the Constitution, not their boss, nor the President, nor the latest policy du jour. In my opinion that is that way for a reason. So that we don't wind up defending fallible people or their policies but we rather defend infallible _principles_. I wish you Godspeed in the work you do. If I live as a free American and my plane happens to be the "next one", then I personally prefer liberty. I'm willing to take my chances. I will also take your advice and bring this to the attention of my Congressman. One of my acquaintances is on his staff. All I can ask is that you take the opinions of one of those passengers that goes through the checkpoint every week into account. Given your response so far, sir, I trust that you will.

Thanks again for your time,
Best regards,

[ArmedProgrammer]