Talk:Secondary Security Screening Selection

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Needs an overhaul and cleanup

I'm not sure how much of this aritcle is based on fact. Citations are needed for much of it. I'll probably removed incorrect information like TSA agent conducting ID since the TSA agents don't normally do the ID checks. I also belive that the SSSS requirements are the same at airports where the TSA is not staffing the checkpoints. Vegaswikian 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSSS criteria are not uniformly executed at all airports -- I have only been repeatedly selected at Toronto Pearson Airport, where I am a member of both CanPass and NEXUS, which purpose is to have cleared travellers with eye scans. I have NEVER been selected for SSSS at any other airport that I have travelled through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.70.221 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article and even many of the comments in the talk section are very badly out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.87.250 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

criteria that sometimes generate a SSSS"

Looking at the list of "criteria that sometimes generate a SSSS" in the "How does it work?", that list simply amounts to "random", surely? For example, the three items "Passengers traveling alone"/"2 passengers"/"Passengers traveling as a group", taken together, just means "all passengers." Making that list, if accurate, a complete waste of space. Jacob 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. If we can not source that data, it probably needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed again. I was just about to post this. Travelling alone, 2 passengers, or as a group covers everyone on an airplane. The list seems to be superfluous..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.173.199 (talk • contribs)

As I have been repeatedly identified for SSSS at only Toronto Pearson Airport (traveling through any other airport I have never been selected), a cleanup to the criteria as to HOW the selections are made needs to be undertaken -- since I am a member of both CanPass and NEXUS, and as such, a known and cleared traveller, this shouldn't be happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.70.221 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link of a blog entry with some more information on SSSS here. Information also in the comments on the same page. Don't know what's true and what's not. Never been SSSSed an mostly flying in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.79.241 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not necessarily a reliable source. See Self-published and questionable sources Test35965 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have narrowed the select process down to the following: Passenger itinerary inludes one international leg, including the original point of entry into the US, and one domestic leg. Critically, the original country of embarkation does not match the passengers nationality. e.g. British citizen leaves Sydney Australia on Qantas and travels to LAX, connects in LAX to Alaskan Airlines and travels to SEA, SSSS is applied in LAX when the boarding pass is reissued. This has happened to me on a number of occasions, against a number of variables, but relatively consistent with the above.Billytucker100 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new note from "Marc": From my experience of flying 50 times in the last 6 years, I am always marked with SSSS, even on round-trip flights. I have been marked this way since around December 2002. I do not pay in cash either. I do often book at the last minute to fly on business. The TSA Agent confirmed this can cause the additional screening. I do think that certain people just get marked this way and it sticks. I have never been arrested, I am American and I'm only flying in the USA.

The last 5 or 6 times I've flown I've been given the SSSS treatment. Both US domestic and international. The airlines always claim I was randomly selected but I am the only one called out of line. It really makees you feel like second class citizen, particularly because I have no criminal record and even have a license to practice law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.32.54 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be removed

I w/o disclosing myself would recommend that this page be removed as all information given except "Reservations Within 24hrs and One Way Destination" is wrong. Additionally, It is advised to visit TSA.Gov for more info, as "complete" information regarding Selectee Checkpoint Program cannot be disclosed to public by law. - Guest/EWR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.209.80 (talk • contribs)

You can put the article up for deletion using WP:AFD or check on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to see if there are any legal issues with the material included. Vegaswikian 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section is important to be retained. I have been repeatedly identified for SSSS, and this section has been very informative to me to understand what I have perceived as discriminatory selection is actually based on the multi-variate criteria that applies to me. Unfortunately, since I am a member of both CanPass and NEXUS, and as such, a known and cleared traveller, this shouldn't be happening. Perhaps they need to modify the criteria to exclude those cleared travellers participating in CanPass and NEXUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.70.221 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I believe that the statement, "Passengers who carry no luggage (or carry a lot of luggage)." is dubious. How could a policy be enacted that applies only to people who carry no luggage, or a lot of luggage. What would be classified as a lot then? I believe this topic should be removed from further edits of the article.

Not to mention a lot of the criteria already listed, at least the ones without sources.

well, if somebody has no luggage, its easier for that person to escape at the destination (think of hijacker, suicider....), if a person has more luggage, think of that maybe all that luggage doesnt belong to him/her. theres enough stupid people (especially older, naive ones) that would take a suitcase from somebody else. it happened just a few month ago at an airport in europe that an older couple took a bag from a "young man" they just met at the airport. he said that this bag belongs to his sister in usa and it would be too expensive to send it over. the couple took the suitcase because they trusted him! a security agent was watching them and in the end everything came out. luckily there were only clothes inside, but who knows, maybe that "young man" could have been part of a terrorist organisation, and he just checked out if it was easy enough to give somebody else some extra luggage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by A lil wee tiny bee (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lasdlt (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No references have been provided for many of the criteria claimed to be used. Since they have been tagged that way for a while, I think it is reasonable to simply removed those without references. An editing note should be left alerting editors that adds to that section require a reference or they will be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted the unreferenced ones and added the comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive information

I have removed Sensitive Security Information from this page. Please do not repost the information or I will have no choice but to get DHS involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.147.130 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have already been reverted, but for the record, there is nothing particularly sensitive about the fact that 'SSSS' is printed on boarding passes. Don't waste the DHS's time with petty issues.Test35965 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of Sensitive Security Information is only restricted when you are a "covered person" (airline employee, TSA screener, etc.). If a random person comes across SSI, he or she may freely re-publish it with no legal consequences. You may report to DHS, but they have no power to restrict dissemination by non-covered persons. --Jonathan Corbett. 192.36.80.8 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since August 2006 (liquid ban) I have never believed it when something is done for "security reasons." 208.99.137.71 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the talk page is not to blurt out personal opinions. Test35965 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The list contains 14,000 names, as of December 2009."

This is a bit misleading because SSSS can happen to anyone, however according to the article cited in footnote #1, there were 14000 people on a list who would always be flagged SSSS. The statement should be clarified or removed. (Keeper of Maps (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Procedure when selected

The procedure described in the article is out of date. I was flagged SSSS a couple of days ago and I was subjected to the full-body backscatter scan and a comprehensive pat-down. My carry-on was searched and swabbed, too. (Keeper of Maps (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Cannot Print Boarding Passes at Home

The article says you cannot print your boarding pass at home, and "SSSS" appears on your BP at the airport. This is simply not true. I have never seen the "SSSS" before. Furthermore, we get this screening quite frequently, despite printing off boarding passes at home. Presidentbalut (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"SSSS" has appeared on boarding passes. I know from first hand experience. What I can't say is, they still being printed on boarding passes. Also what do you mean by getting this screening? The back scatter type of devices, which were only in the extra screening line at one point, are now the standard for most lanes. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This statement in the article is patently false. If the TSA or an Airline designates you as a 'SSSS', you can print your boarding pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have first-had experience where the airline refused to allow printing of an SSSS boarding pass at home or at an automated airport kiosk. The SSSS boarding pass was printed at the check-in counter by the airline. There are many accounts of other passengers experiencing this as well. This may not be true all of the time, but it is definitely not "false".
PS: 216.81.81.80, your IP address comes from the United States Department of Homeland Security and has been flagged for vandalism here on Wikipedia. Without a Wikipedia account, there is no way to know who is making which edits or comments, so they all risk being blocked along with the IP address. JonathanCross (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of content

In in this revision, a specific piece of information was deleted with no explanation:

In the case of Southwest Airlines, secondary screening selectees will have a "checkerboard" pattern printed on their boarding passes.

I have restored the sentence and added references, but please feel free to improve. -- JonathanCross (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Secondary Security Screening Selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080724050239/http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/04/watchlist2 to http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/04/watchlist2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Secondary Security Screening Selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206045508/http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=274 to http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=274

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]