Talk:Transportation Security Administration

"Link Changed"

changed title of Las Vegas news link. TSA employees at Vegas don't have bypass privlages, and by pass screening was transfered by the airport to a private company. ZedSnardbody 10:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mental defectives"

Is the news story about the TSA wanting to exclude military veterans discharged for mental reasons worth including here? nae'blis _(talk) 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Line of Invasion of Privacy

"Many citizens don't trust TSA to implement this program without crossing the line of invasion of privacy for regular law-abiding citizens."

The above could be worded better... 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

129.215.13.83 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) TSA are just power-trippng ex-con nazis who should be beaten.

I'm not sure that really qualifies as "worded better"... 86.136.248.146 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What about including some of the critisicm?

for instance, see evidence here. I'm not an American, so I don't know much about this agency, but as someone who's used to going to Wikipedia in order to find out both the good and the bad about an American agency, I'm certainly missing the 'bad' part here. Volland 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. This article reads as though it was written by the TSA itself. I've added a criticism section to help balance out the article. -- TexasDawg 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah but do we really count this article as a source? It's someone's blog of their personal experiences, I mean they don't even use proper punctuation and grammar. We should follow Wikipedia's standards and demand that any articles we use, criticising or supporting, is from a reputable and reliable source. Lasdlt 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? -- TexasDawg 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

*Please sign your post. Thanks! 38.100.34.2 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*Do you have a point? TexasDawg 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How many employees does the TSA have?

This would be a good fact to have for the article. -- TexasDawg 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Airport screeners or total? Lasdlt 05:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a PT TSO, and I believe the number lies between 30-45,000. I will see if I can find anything.Pr0carbine (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

Does a website whose address is antiwar.com strike one as being a biased source?..

• The article is from Ron Paul, a U.S. Congressman. You can find it at numerous other sources if you are troubled by this particular domain name. TexasDawg 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is also flawed - background checks are performed on all employees, baggage can be locked, those subject to additional screening (pat downs, etc) are offered private screening. So even if the article is not intended to be biased, it is quite misinformed. People who are rude are not put on some list... that's done by a seperate system that the average screener at an airport has no access to - indeed, how can your name go on a list when at no point during your flight do you ever have to provide identification? As for revealing protocol, no it doesn't make sense to state exactly what our operating procedure is, and perhaps this representative and the female representative shocked at being treated like a common citizen should have read the fine print of the bill they passed. So no, I don't think this source should be mentioned in this article because it is... well, it's an opinion piece and an extremely flawed one at that -n5667

• None of this refutes the criticisms or the significance of the criticisms listed in the article. TexasDawg 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-Why not? You're relying on the Senator to tell us what is fact, since I happen to work for the TSA I am actually aware of how things work. Statements he makes such as... "If they don't submit quickly and attempt to assert any rights, they will end up detained, put on a TSA list that guarantees them hostile treatment at every airport, and possibly arrested or fined for their "attitude."" This statement is absolutely false - It doesn't happen! After all, how can your name be put on a list when at no point during your domestic travels do you have to furnish identification to the TSA. The article is simply an opinion piece, there are actual events that occured that could be referenced, but I don't see how Wikipedia will be helped by inserting an opinion section into every article. -n5667

• Fair enough. I will remove it as a source for this particular criticism. Also, when signing your responses in the future typing four consecutive ~'s at the end of your response will automatically insert your user name and time stamp once your post is submitted. -- TexasDawg 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias? Agreed

I also see this article as flawed and biased. This is not an Opinions page. I would agree to the Criticism section, but the rest should be just like an encyclopedia entry. All other opinions or views should be saved for the Criticism section. In addition, how many business, government or private, have thefts? Many or most. And I for one feel safer to fly when I know the airline’s employees aren’t checking me in and then making sure I don’t have any bombs or guns. And that’s one less thing for the airlines to have to spend money on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonsupport8J (talk • contribs) 15:46, September 19, 2006.

• I really don't see a whole lot of opinion outside the critism section in the article's current state. As for theft, most business theft is of company property. In the TSA's case, it is their clients, the general public, whose items are lost. People aren't complaining about the loss of screening wands, but their personal property. As for airline screeners, it wasn't airline employees, but private security contractors paid for in part by airlines (which I would agree might not be as safe as government sponsored screening). --skew-t 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• None of this refutes the criticisms or the significance of the criticisms listed in the article. TexasDawg 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose moving the word "controversial" out of the introductory sentence "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a controversial U.S. government agency that was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001." The controversy is evident from the "criticisms" section, as well as this talk page, and need not be inserted in the introductory sentence. In the alternative, move the word "controversial" out of the first sentence, and add reference to the controversies to the end of the first paragraph, like this: "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a U.S. government agency that was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA was originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation but was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 01, 2003. The agency has been the subject of a number of controversies." 38.100.34.2 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done -- TexasDawg 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

this page ie more of a bitch page toward the TSA than actually about the TSA

this page needs to be rewritten ASAP

Vandalism

My edit was NOT vandalism; "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is indeed a criticism leveled at the TSA (its head honcho in particular) not a statement of fact. I just didn't have a good source yet. dreddnott 00:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reporting suspicous activity and complaints

It would be very helpful if this page contained phone numbers and email addresses in order for citizens to report suspicious activity and complaints.

Several of my packed items were taken from my checked luggage on Dec 25, 2006 between 9:15 AM and 10:30 AM at the San Diego airport.

They were items of little value (except of a sentimental nature) and not worth stealing, so I think they were simply discarded because my suitcase was quite full and it would have been too hard to get them back in my suitcase.

Hope this was caught on camera like the guy who was stealing jewelry!

I Googled and found a phone number for San Diego airport 'Transportation Security Administration,' but I found when I called that it was also 'Lost and Found' number and though the tape said someone would be there at the time and date I called, no one answered. I clicked 'Contact Us' from the airport's page and found the number I called, 619-400-2140 was the generic number for the airport, not just for the Transportation Security Administration at San Diego airport! In other words, the number listed is not just for TSA, and it is not manned 24/7. Either give an extension option to this number, and have an 800 number that can contact TSA specifically at SAN.

Is this anyway to run a business? No phone contact, no email address. Why does all of this make me feel less secure?

It would also be great if there were a phone number I could call when I spot some of that 'suspicious activity' that the announcer is always harping about repeatedly in airports. Why not include the phone number with the announcements? -- 128.172.28.41 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• TSA is not a business, it's a government agency, therefore you'll be dealing with a beauracracy... Sorry. Anywho, you can ask for a claim form at the airport, and also a comment card from any TSA employee... However, the TSA is not really structured in such a manner that you can contact the local office, there is instead the website!

  http://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/default.aspx

  You may utilize the pull down menu. -- 71.117.75.90 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I sympathize with your frustration, but I'm not sure this Wikipedia page should include contact info for the TSA. -- TexasDawg 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's definitely within our constitutional First Amendment rights as Americans to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In other words, as Americans, we have the right to complain to the government including the TSA. Yes, we can have their contact information on the page. With all the frustrations the TSA have caused, they've earned it and deserve what's coming to them. It's not like we're being unlawful; only trying to uphold the most important rights we have here in America! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.76.138 (talk)

Yes, you certainly have the right to try and contact the TSA and its parent agency, and the necessary information can be found at tsa.gov. But that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a directory, and therefore a Wikipedia page does not need a section listing phone numbers or email addresses. --skew-t 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And end up on a watch list for your efforts, as several CENTCOM contractors have when THEY complained of abuses.

Chain of Command Section

The chain of command section cites no sources. It needs sources, or else it should be removed. -- TexasDawg 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section

I've included a section about Ron Paul's opposition to the TSA, as he is a serious Presidential Canidate for the 2008 Republican Party's Nomination, and I think that this is relevant information. 216.201.33.20 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Will the editor who deleted the new section please either give a valid reason for deletion or revert it. 216.201.33.20 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ron Paul is just one, long-shot, Presidential candidate. His opposition to the TSA may be note-worthy, but it does not warrant its own section. -- TexasDawg 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added budget info

I added a subsection on budget info for FY2007 underneath the Organization section. My first wiki edit so I'd welcome criticism from any WikiWizards out there. The information is factual and links to the appropriations bill which was signed into law. AdmiralJedi 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also added some sample salary info for "screeners" based on a USAJOBS career search. AdmiralJedi 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the salary info up a paragraph because I felt it connected better with the employment figures above. Previously the info went: organization/employment -> new uniforms -> salary. Now it goes organization/employment -> salary -> new uniforms. I'm a bit embarrassed because the salary info is my own edit, but I truly believe the section flows more smoothly now. AdmiralJedi 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Appeal Rights

In both the opening and under the criticism section, it is implied that TSA is denying rights to employees. Though lack of appeal rights to the MSPB and lac of whistleblower protection are negative things, it is not TSA that is making these decision. Congress writes these laws (see Aviation and Transportation Security Act 111(d) or 49 U.S.C. § 44935 note, a.k.a. the "notwithstanding clause") and the MSPB has refused to hear cases from TSOs. TSA is out of the legal loop. In fact, TSA has added its own appeal board (for employees of 2 years and veteran employees of 1 year) because TSOs do not have standing with the MSPB. TSA isn't to blame; Congress is.

This should be fixed.Hoshidoshi 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the POVish, unsourced commentary on this issue from the opening paragraph. -- TexasDawg 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Undid edits referring to MSPB and appeal rights. While Congress did exclude TSO's from an independent appeal right from the MSPB it did not exclude other employees from such rights. TSA has gone out of it's way to deny MSPB rights clearly delineated in Title 49 to employees covered. Noting that appeal rights are significantly diminished and denied in TSA as opposed to to other DHS agencies in the introduction is important. Noting too that MSPB rebuffed their most significant attempt to deny MSPB appeal rights to other employees is a valid criticism. Maybe the sections could be written better, but they are none the less important as other contributions. 0321recon 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added legal citation for edits made on 20 November 2007 to criticisms 49 USC 40122g30321recon (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

11k Salary Info? Accuracy?

I'm curious as to where the 11k salary info came from under the budget section? Accurate and up to date Job searches (based off USAJOBS search) display $26k-$34k/year salaries. Please cite sources for 11k or remove it. AdmiralJedi 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No response to my query yet, I'm eliminating the (apparently) inaccurate employment figures.AdmiralJedi 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've seen the figure of $23k excluding locality pay as is stated earlier in that section is accurate, and TSO positions all seem to be full time or full time split shifts. Not sure where the $11k came from. --skew-t 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a part time TSO, 11,000 sounds familiar, its about what I make a year after taxes.Pr0carbine (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also a part-time TSO, and the salary of 11,000 is the net income a part-time TSO will make in a year; 23-26k would be our yearly equivalent if we were full-time, and they include that number on pay stubs, regardless if full-time or part-time status, as one of the many ways to classify the job (job series, pay grade and step, etc.).69.255.68.170 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

TSA Routing Symbols

missing:

TSA-1 Administrator TSA-1 Business Transformation & Culture TSA-1 OSC - Executive Secretariat TSA-2 Chief Counsel TSA-4 Strategic Communications and Public Affairs TSA-5 Legislative Affairs TSA-6 OSC – Civil Rights and Liberties (OCRL) TSA-9 CFO - Claims Processing TSA-10 Intelligence & Analysis TSA-11 OPT – Information Technology/CIO TSA-12 OPT - Operational and Technical Training TSA-13 Inspection TSA-14 CFO – Finance TSA-15 Model Workplace TSA-16 OPT – Security Technology TSA-17 Administration (CAO) TSA-18 Law Enforcement/FAMS TSA-19 Transportation Threat Assessment & Credentialing TSA-20 OSC – Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) TSA-21 Human Capital TSA-22 OSC – Ombudsman TSA-24 Risk Management - Annapolis Junction TSA-25 Acquisition TSA-28 Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-29 Security Operations TSA-30 OHC - Administrative Appeals and Review TSA-31 OSC - Sensitive Security Information (SSI) TSA-32 Operational Process and Technology TSA-33 Special Counselor (OSC) TSA-34 OPT - Risk Management and Strategic Planning TSA-35 OPT - Operational and Performance Metrics TSA-36 OSC – Privacy TSA-37 OSC – Audit Liaison TSA-901 OSC - Transportation Security Redress (OTSR)

Source: http://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/default.aspx Scriberius 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be? Lasdlt 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks. -- TexasDawg (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"TSA Luggage Locks" Section?

Why is this such a large sub-section of the article? Why is it even a sub-section at all? Seems like non-noteworthy information. Maybe a sentence or two, at most. -- TexasDawg (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TSA approved locks are the reason I came to this article, so it cannot be that non-noteworthy. Jajon (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's noteworthy! I actually came here because of TSA-approved bags, so maybe someone could add a section about that?85.0.113.60 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

((Wehberf)) -- I re-added the issue regarding the lawsuit. There is a pending patent lawsuit regarding the TSA luggage lock system, it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehberf (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Even with thier new uniforms they are still a joke, they have no authority and look more like airline pilots than law enforcement officers. You can never polish a terd, so giving these people badges only took real credible badges that real law enforcement officers wair and stole any honor that goes along with them. To all of those who had to go to an academy and train and be yelled at for 4-6 months easy, only to be considered a rookie and picked on by the veterans, I apologize that this agency makes a mockery of your pride and uniform.

Sleeping employee photo

Please do not delete my photo. It's legit and it's germane to the discussion about TSA. Gw2002 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What discussion is it germane to? It was placed at the end of the criticisms section with no explanation of what the criticism is. It is not know if the employee was on duty, or just in uniform while resting at the airport. Jumping to any conclusions would likely be original research using the photo as a primary source. --skew-t (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They say a photo is worth a thousand words. Whether the employee is on duty or not can be argued but considering the significant criticisms the Administration has faced for poor employee behavior, it is ABSOLUTELY germane to the conversation. You are free to draw your own conclusion. I took the photo myself. If I see any federal officer sleeping at his or her place of work, I'd consider it worthy of posting. I'd be happy to move it out of the criticism section and into a free-form area but you will ultimately try to delete it anyway because you don't like what it implies. The photo and its caption are absolutely factual. Gw2002 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt at all that it is a real photograph and an accurate caption, and it's an interesting capture. But I'm still wondering what exactly it is germane to. Wikipedia articles themselves are not a place for discussion, nor a place for folks to draw their own conclusions from primary sources. I'm certainly not bothered by what it may imply, but rather that it appears to be a primary source requiring interpretation leading to unpublished criticism. Such interpretation generally requires a reliable secondary source. Please assume good faith and do not assume I will ignore this discussion in editing. --skew-t (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have major issues with the use of this image.

• 1 - The image makes readers assume something that can't be proved.
• 2 - Violates WP:NOR.
• 3 - I wouldn't consider it "poor behavior" to take a nap, people do it at the airport all the time.
• 4 - it is obvious the TSO is not near the security lines, and appears to be by the enterance to the airport.

Proof is what this picture lacks -Marcusmax(speak) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with many of the points made by both of you. Except for the WP:NOR reference. Hence, I am (halfheartedly) removing this photo at this time.Gw2002 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hierarchy John_Brek

There should be more hierarchy clarity. That is more about sequence than about content: Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement.

There should be a John Brek, < http://fjcsecurity.com/contact.html >, article.

As for the photograph_(disambiguation), < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transportation_Security_Administration&diff=261597126&oldid=261492007 >, < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transportation_Security_Administration&diff=261836084&oldid=261597126 >,

that is good; but, is there any evidence whether his duty post was in what condition, whether he had been waiting to begin a shift, whether he had just recently ended a shift? Then there's raygun_(disambiguation).

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the criticism section

We shouldn't have sections where we shove all of the criticism related to something. That is not good encyclopedia article writing.

We need to distribute the information throughout the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe has a point, and each aspect of a topic should be presented with it's descriptions and detractions... but the TSA fails to achieve their stated mission so dramatically, and there is so much question as to why they even exist, that it seems like working the list of problems into the flow of the page would result in taking over the page. This may be a good thing, all told. radcen (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative Action

I take it that the hiring of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) is governed as much by Affirmative Action as it is by objective testing. If so, should that fact be noted in the article? BruceSwanson (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

unattended baggage

Unattended baggage redirects to this article, but there is no mention of it anywhere in this article. --71.141.97.250 (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)