Articles on release of TSA screening procedures manual
Wired
ABC New
Here a link to the Manual
I’m pretty sure that nothing will come to this except tighter security, I believe this is a plot by TSA to annoy us all more.
As a photographer that has been harassed by TSA while photographing planes at DTW…they can’t even stop you from photographing the security checkpoints (pics of the screens are not allowed) according to the document none of them ever read. You know they will bust you anyway…
They are basically glorified mall security guards; give certain undereducated people a badge and suddenly they have power. 
While TSA can’t stop photographers, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances can prohibit pictures of security checkpoints.
tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/ … tures.shtm
Going on memory, I believe that BWI has such a law posted around the checkpoints.
I just don’t understand why a secure document was so freely posted. I would have not posted it, but just say, if you want a copy or a link to a working URL, pm me.
Why promote breaches of security is beyond my understanding especially when it comes to security (no matter how many revisions have been made since the creation of this document)
[quote=“l…a”]if you want a copy or a link to a working URL, pm me.
[/quote]
Or just click on the link in my original posting.
Now, why did the TSA publish the manual to the web? It’s because it is a government agency and, like most government agencies, it is incapable of being efficient or doing things the correct way.
The TSA redacted portions of the manual in a way that was fairly easy to un-redact. They shouldn’t have posted it in the first place. But they did so why didn’t they redact the sections correctly? It all comes back to the second letter in the abbreviation of TSA: “stupid”.
Or just click on the link in my original posting…
[/quote]
Per usual, you didn’t read, and you are missing my point.
Why make a security breached document readily accessible in a public forum? Your action is no better then the TSA.
Or just click on the link in my original posting…
Per usual, you didn’t read, and you are missing my point.
Why make a security breached document readily accessible in a public forum? Your action is no better then the TSA.
[/quote]
Allen, it’s front page on foxnews.com today. I was wondering the same thing as you yesterday, but apparently the secret’s out now. The question is, now what does TSA do, in regards to whether to continue to use the same techniques that they have been using since 9/11 or to adopt new rules about when and who to profile?
Hmm, may be time sensitive but I don’t see it. I even tried a search for TSA.
I know usatoday.com and cnn.com is reporting the incident, but they are not providing the actual document nor links to it (other then saying it’s widely available on the internet)
If foxnews is providing the UNredacted document, in my eyes, they are just as irresponsible as Dami.
It was fairly easy to find. I used “tsa screening manual” in Google.
USA Today is providing a link to the document (4th paragraph down).
What’s the difference between providing the link here or having someone send you a private message to get the link? Nothing. In both cases, the person gets the link. My way they get it without having to go through a third party.
My point is why make it easy to access a document that was never to be released? USAToday is just as irresponsible as you are.
Not quite sure what you don’t understand about that you are adding to the problem. You are quick call out the problem on TSA who made an honest mistake (I HOPE), but you are more the problem by PURPOSELY PUBLICLY posting the links to the document.
BUSTED!!!
Now y’all are sure to get this thread locked down 
An article I read (CNN?) said it was posted as background info for a procurement (request for proposals). The people responsible for redacting that information before posting were “insufficiently trained”.
In my company, I showed one of our ITAR gatekeepers how in a Microsoft Office document you could unwittingly provide embedded algorithms (not approved for export under ITAR) even while the paper printout from that document contains only approved material. The company established another step in compliance checking for export approval of soft copies of documents.
The TSA’s deficiency in redacting undoubtedly was a “gotcha” in the same category.
Actually I read in an IT website it wasn’t the people doing the redaction where the problem was. They only used redaction tools that were installed on their computer (I believe an older version of Adobe). The problem was that version didn’t not permanently redact the data but masked it.
How are the people doing the redaction to know that the software was outdated. I would put the problem squarely on the shoulders of the IT folks for not having updated Adobe.
To see what I am talking about, on a Windows based machine, if you open a picture in Microsoft Document and Imaging, if you redact data from the image, it is not permanent. File / save changes is NOT enough.
To make redaction permanent, you have to click on tools, options, make changes permanent. Otherwise, your changes will not erase the underlying data that you may have masked. It will be masked to the uninformed, but to the computer savy, just like TSA, the data is accessable if you don’t take the extra precautions.
Another screw up.
Yesterday I went from OAK to LAX on a business trip. Everything was fine in OAK. Returning from LAX the same day I got stopped at “security” because there was a Swiss Army Knife in my backpack. The same knife that had been in my backpack at OAK! I didn’t realize it was in my backpack. In fact, I wanted to thank the agent at LAX for finding it for me because I thought I had lost it.
Get this: I was given the option of checking in the backpack. I said I wanted to do that. So the TSA agent carries my back out of the “secured” area. She was holding it in her hands like it was some dead animal carcass!
Anyway, I ended up not having to check my backpack. The good agent behind that SWA counter found a box for me to put the knife in so all I had to check was the box.
That’s ‘secret agent’ airport security officer to you!
More than 10,000 airport security employees will be granted "secret" security clearances under a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiative.
Daniel Rubin: Another case of TSA overkill
Did you hear about the Camden cop whose disabled son wasn’t allowed to pass through airport security unless he took off his leg braces?
Unfortunately, it’s no joke. This happened to Bob Thomas, a 53-year-old officer in Camden’s emergency crime suppression team, who was flying to Orlando in March with his wife, Leona, and their son, Ryan.
Ryan was taking his first flight, to Walt Disney World, for his fourth birthday.
The boy is developmentally delayed, one of the effects of being born 16 weeks prematurely. His ankles are malformed and his legs have low muscle tone. In March he was just starting to walk.
Mid-morning on March 19, his parents wheeled his stroller to the TSA security point, a couple of hours before their Southwest Airlines flight was to depart.
The boy’s father broke down the stroller and put it on the conveyor belt as Leona Thomas walked Ryan through the metal detector.
The alarm went off.
The screener told them to take off the boy’s braces.
The Thomases were dumbfounded. “I told them he can’t walk without them on his own,” Bob Thomas said.
"He said, ‘He’ll need to take them off.’ "
Ryan’s mother offered to walk him through the detector after they removed the braces, which are custom-made of metal and hardened plastic.
No, the screener replied. The boy had to walk on his own.
Leona Thomas said she was calm. Bob Thomas said he was starting to burn.
They complied, and Leona went first, followed by Ryan, followed by Bob, so the boy wouldn’t be hurt if he fell. Ryan made it through.
By then, Bob Thomas was furious. He demanded to see a supervisor. The supervisor asked what was wrong.
"I told him, ‘This is overkill. He’s 4 years old. I don’t think he’s a terrorist.’ "
The supervisor replied, “You know why we’re doing this,” Thomas said.
Thomas said he told the supervisor he was going to file a report, and at that point the man turned and walked away.
A Philadelphia police officer approached and asked what the problem was. Thomas said he identified himself and said he was a Camden officer. The Philadelphia officer suggested he calm down and enjoy his vacation.
Back home in Glassboro a week later, Bob Thomas called the airport manager and left her what he calls a terse message.
He was still angry enough last week to call me after I’d written a couple of columns about travelers’ complaints of mistreatment by screeners at the airport.
“This was just stupid,” he told me.
At the very least, it was not standard procedure.
On Friday, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said the boy never should have been told to remove his braces.
TSA policy should have allowed the parents to help the boy to a private screening area where he could have been swabbed for traces of explosive materials.
She said she wished Thomas had reported the matter to TSA immediately. “If screening is not properly done, we need to go back to that officer and offer retraining so it’s corrected.”
Davis also said TSA’s security director at the airport, Bob Ellis, called Thomas last week to apologize. He gave Thomas the name of the agency’s customer service representative, in case he has a problem at the airport in the future.
Afterward, Thomas said he appreciated Ellis’ call. He said he had no interest in pursuing the matter further or in filing a lawsuit.
“I’m just looking for things to be done right,” he said. “And I just want to make sure this isn’t done to anyone else. Just abide by your standard operating procedures.”
Do you really think Officer Thomas would haven been given an apology had he not gone to the media? I doubt it.
Look at this: “She said she wished Thomas had reported the matter to TSA immediately. ‘If screening is not properly done, we need to go back to that officer and offer retraining so it’s corrected.’” Guess what? Officer Thomas reported it to the jackass screener’s supervisor. Nothing was done.