Anything larger than a cell phone now banned for Carryon?

Kingairer said:
Because they were asked to put an iPad in a bin? That's different than a ban on inflight usage from targeted airlines and city pairs. I dislike the TSA and this administration and the CF they are as much as anyone, but I am willing to assume they are doing this to disrupt a planned attack they have intelligence on. If they extend it worldwide in purpituity "just in case" then it will be a different story.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. They did let me take them on the plane with me. But I thought it was weird. I have had a subsequent conversation with someone in the know and ipads will now need to be scanned like laptops.
 
MikeD said:
Looks like it encompasses international arrivals from selected Middle East and African continent nations.
Click to expand...
Troglodytes Stupefying America.

I think it may be a broader problem having to do with TSA agents' inability to interpret the language of the regs.

I got stopped and frisked a few weeks ago trying to exit a flight home from Florida. They justified the detention on the grounds that I had stated I was arriving from a "balmy place". ;)
 
Crop Duster said:
Troglodytes Stupefying America.
I think it may be a broader problem having to do with TSA agents' inability to interpret the language of the regs.
Click to expand...

Or even the Constitution. There's those pesky amendments related to unreasonable searches and seizures. Do they even teach that in law school or even elementary school any more?
 
av8tr1 said:
Or even the Constitution. There's those pesky amendments related to unreasonable searches and seizures. Do they even teach that in law school or even elementary school any more?
Click to expand...
giphy-1.gif
 
Crop Duster said:
Troglodytes Stupefying America.

I think it may be a broader problem having to do with TSA agents' inability to interpret the language of the regs.

I got stopped and frisked a few weeks ago trying to exit a flight home from Florida. They justified the detention on the grounds that I had stated I was arriving from a "balmy place". ;)
Click to expand...

Policy creep is a real problem in any organization. It's only increased in abundance and overreach when you combine minimally trained persons with a mandate that they are some special force against evil.

The problem isn't the grabby drones coping attitude with people in security lines, it's with their first line leaders and senior supervisors not:

1. Understanding and adhering to established policy's with actual Operational Procedures.

2. Effectively training and passing that guidance to those operational level agents.

3. Repeatedly spot checking and stopping the slow creep from accepted policy to "well this is how we do things in this airport" crap.

Unfortunately a low funded agency isn't likely to get a lot of good middle management/guidance because the people it's promoting were probably those poorly led operators so they see nothing wrong when they are put in leadership.

You gotta have good seeds to grow good crops, otherwise garbage in = garbage out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
You gotta have good seeds to grow good crops, otherwise garbage in = garbage out.
Click to expand...
Excellent to see you will be with me in the fight against Monsanto!
That is a fine exegesis on the problems with TSA managment. Addressing those issues might help improve TSA. However, it suffers from inertial confirmation bias (formerly known as a lack of perspective). Step back a few thousand feet and take another look. The big picture will emerge and you will see...
There is but ONE problem with TSA... It's existence.
 
av8tr1 said:
Or even the Constitution. There's those pesky amendments related to unreasonable searches and seizures. Do they even teach that in law school or even elementary school any more?
Click to expand...

Doesn't apply.

Two parts of case law:

U.S. vs Davis (1973), 9th circuit court basically saying that administrative searches are allowed if "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

And U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (1986) where the 9th curcuit court ruled that "To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
 
MikeD said:
Doesn't apply.

Two parts of case law:

U.S. vs Davis (1973), 9th circuit court basically saying that administrative searches are allowed if "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

And U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (1986) where the 9th curcuit court ruled that "To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
Click to expand...
That's what this guy said...
Wait... no.
""His ignorance of the law and the Fourth Amendment should disqualify him from being able to wear a CBP badge - but maybe fear and detention is the new mission of the CBP and the Constitution is a mere suggestion," Aden said.
Then again, maybe the CBP officer was an "originalist" and reckoned the Constitution as it was written when it was written didn't cover this particular Police Chief.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/us/retired-police-chief-detained/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
That's what this guy said...
Wait... no.
""His ignorance of the law and the Fourth Amendment should disqualify him from being able to wear a CBP badge - but maybe fear and detention is the new mission of the CBP and the Constitution is a mere suggestion," Aden said.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/us/retired-police-chief-detained/
Click to expand...

Again, under the 4th amendment, anyone (USC included) is subject to search when entering the country from abroad. A search at a border or functional equivalent, requires zero level of suspicion. and can consist of a basic non-invasive search of ones person; and a detailed search of their belongings.

Id be interested to hear the OFO side of this one and whether this particular instance could've been handled better or more efficiently.

Where were all the OFO officers who know him on that particular day?
 
Crop Duster said:
Excellent to see you will be with me in the fight against Monsanto!
That is a fine exegesis on the problems with TSA managment. Addressing those issues might help improve TSA. However, it suffers from inertial confirmation bias (formerly known as a lack of perspective). Step back a few thousand feet and take another look. The big picture will emerge and you will see...
There is but ONE problem with TSA... It's existence.
Click to expand...

If you can't get into Disney land without having your bags inspected it's unreasonable to expect you're going to get on a public transport aircraft.

Whether we leave it to the government or private security agencies individually hired like mall security, some form of physical barrier to free passage is going to exist. At least with the TSA you have a one stop shop for policy that should ideally lead to equal protection and expectation of what screenings will happen from airport to airport (my management example). The other option would be something akin to the every little airport its own kingdom where airlines and insurance concerns may reject service to areas and actually leave people disenfranchised from access to travel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
If you can't get into Disney land without having your bags inspected it's unreasonable to expect you're going to get on a public transport aircraft.

Whether we leave it to the government or private security agencies individually hired like mall security, some form of physical barrier to free passage is going to exist. At least with the TSA you have a one stop shop for policy that should ideally lead to equal protection and expectation of what screenings will happen from airport to airport (my management example). The other option would be something akin to the every little airport its own kingdom where airlines and insurance concerns may reject service to areas and actually leave people disenfranchised from access to travel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

TSA has a credibility problem, and it's well earned. Over the past fifteen years it has squandered the public goodwill, likely one of the highest amount at the inception of a federal agency through repeated oversteps of authority and mandate, corruption, incompetence and inconsistency.

I'm not sure your conclusion the only other option is to have micro-fiefdoms of security with varying policies is accurate. Even now, local jurisdictions can choose to contract private security rather than TSA, and do so with the requirement they meet federal standards. Seems it's a model followed in so many industries I fail to understand why it can't be successful here. While it doesn't eliminate the conflicts of interest and avenues for oversteps and corruption, it does break up the massive incentive to perpetuate itself through fear and natural desire for expansion of mandate.

I supported the formation of TSA. The final straw for me, after the ridiculous water bottle nonsense, the shoe nonsense, VIPR silliness, was the cynical use of the Northwest 253 to fleece the American taxpayer. Scanning machines proven ineffective and incapable of detecting even the threat event being used as the fear inciting device for their purchase, literally rammed down the throats of the traveling public just prior to the holiday travel season with threats of humiliation if you exercise your right to not comply. Of course this was led by Micheal Chertof, the primary champion of the machines, daily on TV ginning up the public with chicken little like stories of jets falling from the sky over Peoria or Kearney should the machines not be purchased, with no evidence, only to have him walk within months to a multi million dollar consulting contract with Rapiscan.

It's long past time to relegate the TSA to higher level functions, FAMs, risk assessment and policy formulation, and cut the corrupting, mission obfuscating 70% of its budget I see as a impediment to its success, the day to day employment, management and operation of airport screening.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Cazadores said:
TSA has a credibility problem, and it's well earned. Over the past fifteen years it has squandered the public goodwill, likely one of the highest amount at the inception of a federal agency through repeated oversteps of authority and mandate, corruption, incompetence and inconsistency.

I'm not sure your conclusion the only other option is to have micro-fiefdoms of security with varying policies is accurate. Even now, local jurisdictions can choose to contract private security rather than TSA, and do so with the requirement they meet federal standards. Seems it's a model followed in so many industries I fail to understand why it can't be successful here. While it doesn't eliminate the conflicts of interest and avenues for oversteps and corruption, it does break up the massive incentive to perpetuate itself through fear and natural desire for expansion of mandate.

I supported the formation of TSA. The final straw for me, after the ridiculous water bottle nonsense, the shoe nonsense, VIPR silliness, was the cynical use of the Northwest 253 to fleece the American taxpayer. Scanning machines proven ineffective and incapable of detecting even the threat event being used as the fear inciting device for their purchase, literally rammed down the throats of the traveling public just prior to the holiday travel season with threats of humiliation if you exercise your right to not comply. Of course this was led by Micheal Chertof, the primary champion of the machines, daily on TV ginning up the public with chicken little like stories of jets falling from the sky over Peoria or Kearney should the machines not be purchased, with no evidence, only to have him walk within months to a multi million dollar consulting contract with Rapiscan.

It's long past time to relegate the TSA to higher level functions, FAMs, risk assessment and policy formulation, and cut the corrupting, mission obfuscating 70% of its budget I see as a impediment to its success, the day to day employment, management and operation of airport screening.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wonder if TSA is coming under the budget cutting of fed agencies?

Just saw a news blurb that UK is considering some sort of airline electronics ban too.
 
MikeD said:
I wonder if TSA is coming under the budget cutting of fed agencies?

Just saw a news blurb that UK is considering some sort of airline electronics ban too.
Click to expand...

Naw the trumpinator is putting most of the budget into beefing up defense. I doubt we will see any cuts to the TSA under his administration.
 
av8tr1 said:
Naw the trumpinator is putting most of the budget into beefing up defense. I doubt we will see any cuts to the TSA under his administration.
Click to expand...

His budget has cuts to TSA and Coastguard, both good ideas in a budget with lots to hate on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top