TSA...again

Richard said:
It just keeps getting better...

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5747796
Click to expand...
I have trouble accepting the author's credentials when there's a grammatical error in the second sentence. This is supposed to be professional journalism. I won't even get into the superficial manner of the reporting.

I'm not saying that lost uniforms aren't a real problem, but the author certainly doesn't give enough evidence one way or another to make any sort of a judgement.
 
gprellwitz said:
I have trouble accepting the author's credentials when there's a grammatical error in the second sentence. This is supposed to be professional journalism. I won't even get into the superficial manner of the reporting.

I'm not saying that lost uniforms aren't a real problem, but the author certainly doesn't give enough evidence one way or another to make any sort of a judgement.
Click to expand...
I noticed it too. In fact, I was thinking this would cast suspicion on the article. Then I thought, naw, it's just me...:yes:
 
gprellwitz said:
I have trouble accepting the author's credentials when there's a grammatical error in the second sentence. This is supposed to be professional journalism. I won't even get into the superficial manner of the reporting.

I'm not saying that lost uniforms aren't a real problem, but the author certainly doesn't give enough evidence one way or another to make any sort of a judgement.
Click to expand...


Hey...:dunno: It's just Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter.....B) Don't worry ...
Everything is under control..... ;)
He's a friend of Superman!!!:yes: :rofl: :rofl:
 
gprellwitz said:
I have trouble accepting the author's credentials when there's a grammatical error in the second sentence. This is supposed to be professional journalism. I won't even get into the superficial manner of the reporting.

I'm not saying that lost uniforms aren't a real problem, but the author certainly doesn't give enough evidence one way or another to make any sort of a judgement.
Click to expand...

Wears the error? :D

Could also be an editing mistake. There are tons of grammar and spelling errors everyday in the printed media.
 
One can only wonder why anyone would want to impersonate an officer whose only power is to root through dirty underwear at an airport. Perhaps cross-referencing the suspects to the perverts file would be availing.
 
TSA has Screeners and Agents. I've not asked whether the screeners are sworn officers with arrest powers and such (and customarily, if a federal employee wears a badge on his uniform he is supposed to be sworn, but since screeners aren't armed I don't think they are sworn), but I know that their Agents are GS-1800 series investigators with full police powers.

Regardless of their police powers, the danger of a TSA impersonator would be their potential for access to secure spaces.
 
Ron Levy said:
One can only wonder why anyone would want to impersonate an officer whose only power is to root through dirty underwear at an airport. Perhaps cross-referencing the suspects to the perverts file would be availing.
Click to expand...

Not to be to graphic but I'll bet there are a few sickos out there that enjoy rooting through dirty underwear. Also I think the main idea would be to see if they could get through security without a search. Then they could preposition weapons for others to pick up and bring on board. Or they could also be trying to gain access to places to see where the weak points in surveillance is and then exploit those areas.
 
TMetzinger said:
And this is a TV station, after all....
Click to expand...
TV station reporters aren't usually hired for their skills normally obtained through education (Unless she went to finishing school). :)

There are exceptions to either extreme; Andy Rooney and Sean Hannity.
 
TMetzinger said:
TSA has Screeners and Agents. I've not asked whether the screeners are sworn officers with arrest powers and such (and customarily, if a federal employee wears a badge on his uniform he is supposed to be sworn, but since screeners aren't armed I don't think they are sworn)
Click to expand...
Correct -- not sworn, guns, no power of arrest.

but I know that their Agents are GS-1800 series investigators with full police powers.
Click to expand...
I do not believe they wear uniforms.

Regardless of their police powers, the danger of a TSA impersonator would be their potential for access to secure spaces.
Click to expand...
Nobody gets in merely on the strength of uniform/badge -- photo ID required (and if they can forge that, they can copy the uniform, too). And I do not believe they're exempt from search on entry.
 
"Their one of the last lines of defense to keep you safe in the air. It's something air travelers have come to expect."

Please tell me someone has emaild the station and had some fun with this?!
 
Ron Levy said:
Nobody gets in merely on the strength of uniform/badge -- photo ID required (and if they can forge that, they can copy the uniform, too). And I do not believe they're exempt from search on entry.
Click to expand...

I think the current rules only require that they be searched upon reporting for duty/first entry of the day.
 
Ron Levy said:
Correct -- not sworn, guns, no power of arrest.

I do not believe they wear uniforms.

Nobody gets in merely on the strength of uniform/badge -- photo ID required (and if they can forge that, they can copy the uniform, too). And I do not believe they're exempt from search on entry.
Click to expand...

The report said credentials were missing - that's the photo ID we're discussing. And if they were credential blanks (add picture, type in name, and laminate) then it's even easier since you don't have to find a bad guy who looks like the stolen ID.

And from observing, I see TSA folks coming in and getting their ID checked, but not getting screened themselves, so they are inside the sterile area without passing through the magnetometer.

So I think the scenario of an imposter smuggling something in is possible, but it's still a fairly high-risk deal, as I'd expect people to recognize each other, and a "new" person would likely go through a more thorough "reporting-in" process. I know that when we got a new guard (guards at my old building were federal security officers run by the US Marshal's service) the new guard would report in, and the supervisor would confirm his identity and credentials with HQ before he'd be allowed unescorted access to the secure area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top