Talk:Transportation Security Administration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vandalism

The article mentions people having items stolen from luggage by the TSA, would it be appropriate to add vandalism as well? See here: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tsa-vandalism.html They also seem to have no reasonable way to report complains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1812 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

sleeping TSA

the picture of the sleeping TSA agent needs to be removed or documented in the event the agent was on break and able to rest. Also George Soros's and Chertoff's conflict of interest investments in backscatter xray devices and their desire to have them placed at all airports needs to be examined.

Obama does not need to make the TSA the scapegoat for his indebtness and puppet on a string control to Soros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.14.178 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"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)

Removed its a picture of a living person, who appears to be off duty The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2010 (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)

3.4 TSA Sexual Assault section - POV

The section 3.4 TSA Sexual Assault is extraordinarily POV and sensationalist (even ignoring it addressing the reader in the second person). Needs a rewrite. I'm tempted to remove the entire section myself on the grounds that it emotionally misinforms the reader, but I don't have time to rewrite it myself and I suspect I'd be accused of censorship etc. if I just deleted it. Can someone please do something about it without sounding like an emotionally self-entitled housewife? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It sure is, but was that last sentence really necessary? There's plenty of reason to freak out: the TSA has had to announce a change in its policy of touching childrens' genitalia. This will now be limited to children aged 12 and up. Even if there wasn't... but I ramble. I was thinking of turning TSA security procedures into their own article. A clear and thorough explanation of the situation would probably require more space than this article can comfortably give. I'll ask around, get a few opinions. --Kizor 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, citations of the TSA.gov website which address these policies should be included. Stating the assault allegations as fact and citing only sources which contain further allegations is not acceptable. In full disclosure, I'm not making the edits myself because I'm married to a TSA screener (who is, currently, a very emotionally distraught housewife, as well, having been called a sexual predator, in effect, for doing her job). Tad (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant you that a job can be a difficult thing to come by, but at the risk of hyperbole would just like you point you (and her) to the article Superior Orders. 24.110.116.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
I've removed that section. It's all crap, added by an IP. It's essentially vandalism. No attempt at neutrality was made, just a pathetic rant. Grsz11 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that American Traveler Dignity Act should be cited in this section of the article. Hh224 Banned User Grundle2600 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at deleted material, but obviously there is massive criticism of invasive search techniques which needs a section with an NPOV description. It could include mention of support for American Traveler Dignity Act and the act if it passes. Someone's just go to do the work :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TSA Pictures

The picture titled 'TSA Security Search' needs to be corrected, as that is not a picture of a TSA employee, but rather a member of airport-assigned local law enforcement. The picture showing a sleeping TSA employee needs to be correct as it may not be accurately represented, that employee is mostly on a break, remember TSA airport screeners typically start their shifts around 2AM or 3AM. The picture was also most likely put on the page for inflammatory reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.252.255 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The first image if from the TSA, from its "What We Do" page -- see http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening/checked_baggage.shtm . Plus--he is wearing the TSA logo -- I'm confused why you say is not a TSA employee. The second picture contains a non-inflammatory caption.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


The first picture is clearly not a TSA Employee. I am a TSA Employee and the only K9 units in the TSA as assigned to TSA Inspectors, whose uniform does not resemble that in the least bit. That is also clearly not a TSA patch on his uniform. The second picture is inflammatory as it prompts viewers to believe it's customary for TSA Employees to sleep on the judge, when they should be screening passengers. The picture is not fully explained and is easy to take out of context. It should be removed. You don't need to let your bias on TSA to effect the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.133.235 (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done completely agree, It apeears he is well away from the screening area. Not on the job at all The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletes by new editor

Wolfpack903, a new editor, keeps on deleting a poll by an RS on the basis of his view that it is not a statistically significant sample--based on the number of respondents. For one thing, that reflects a lack of understanding of statistical significance in sampling -- it is based on a number of factors, not solely on the number of those polled. Second, that is his POV and/or OR. Third, this is what an RS reports, and as such is appropriate to reflect here under wiki guidelines, as it s verifiable. I have reverted Wolfpack, but he simply reverted back to his deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This WP:SPA is trying to add the same (poorly sourced) information on various pages (see full body scanner), in violation of WP:COATRACK. I'm pretty sure he won't give up. I've alerted him to review various Wikipedia policies, we'll see how that goes. Grsz 11 21:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Online internet polls NOT WP:RS

This discussion already was had at WP:RSN Noticeboard a while back. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Internet_polls_as_a_reliable_source.3F.3F.3F CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is that is underlying this post. But we should be careful to distinguish internet polls, from RS reports as to what internet polls state. The latter would be appropriate, as it is the RS report that is reflected.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Image of Obama/Pistole/Napolitano

TSA Administrator John Pistole and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano meet with President Obama in the Oval Office; October 2010.

Epeefleche, I removed this image because I couldn't see any use for it, either in the "new screening procedures" section or in the article at large. The meeting it depicts isn't even mentioned in the article. What does it bring to the article? PRRfan (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to go back and look where it was, but it has the TSA Administrator, his boss, and the big boss meeting in October, which is shortly before the new guidelines were put in place ... so that seems like one of the various possible logical places to put it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed recentism tag

In the TSA's near-decade of existence, it has never endured such public attention and scrutiny as it has since the November 2010 implementation of the body scan/invasive patdown procedure. Therefore, more attention and text about these procedures are warranted. Moreover, most of the article remains untouched, with the descriptions of the new procedures and attendant criticisms contained within their own sections. Therefore, the article as a whole retains the proper anti-recentivist approach. PRRfan (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the very definition of recentism to much emphasis on the last round of security step ups The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
1) No, I just explained why the given level of emphasis is warranted: The new security procedures and especially the public reaction are a singular event in the agency's history, and the article itself is not overly influenced by them. Therefore, the amount of attention and space devoted to them is appropriate, while the tag is not. If you would care to argue either that a) the new security procedures are not terribly significant, or that b) too much space is devoted to them, fire away. But you're going to have to do better than "to much emphasis". 2) WP tip: You made an edit, I reverted it and launched a Talk page discussion. It is customary that we now discuss the matter and come to a conclusion. While the discussion is going on, it is also customary not to revert the reversion. PRRfan (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Over third of the article is about the last 6 months of the TSA? Yeah thats undue emphasis on recent events. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Here with a third opinion. Let's talk about what WP:UNDUE means. Given the press attention to screening procedures in recent weeks, what proportion of the TSA coverage has happened in the past few weeks? Probably a reasonable amount, but not to the proportion of text in the article. So, two questions:

  • Why should the recentism tag be included? How does it help readers and editors?
  • Assuming for the sake of argument that the Recentism tag is warranted, under what circumstances should it be removed? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the tag as well. There are only a couple sections on recent news. That isn't WP:UNDUE. We could probably have more given how much TSA has been covered in the past 3 weeks compared to the past 3 years. Grsz 11 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Scanner Image

A 2007 image taken with the backscatter x-ray system that TSA uses to screen airline passengers. This is not the image that screeners see at the airports. The machine that took this image does not have the privacy algorithm that blurs facial features.

Why do we have this? If its not what they see at the Airport why are we including it? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the best approximation we currently have in Wikipedia Commons. It's an image by the system used at the airport, just without the blurring. The caption makes that perfectly clear, so we're not misleading readers. Still, it would certainly be preferable to have an actual airport image. Here's what would be helpful: upload such an image to Commons, and place it on this page. Until we get one, let's stick with this. PRRfan (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
We should not use misleading images. Period. Despite the "clarification" is not a neutral way to approach things The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinions that the image is misleading and not a neutral approach. This is a representative image of the type that the TSA machines generate, and its difference from the actual image is clearly noted. In fact, it was released by the TSA specifically to show what such images display. PRRfan (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
How about we use an actual image from the back-scatter machine, not something from years ago that gives a wrong impression. Grabbed the image below from TSA, resized it and uploaded it to commons. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. PRRfan (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Invasive" patdowns

In light of Ravensfire's edit of Nov. 27, I've changed "invasive" to "extensive". I think "invasive" is a fair way to describe a patdown that includes the genital areas, but I think "more extensive" makes the main point: that TSA officers have always patted down some passengers for various reasons, whether SSSS screening or simply at random, but that the new policies implemented in November 2010 include patdowns in which officers touch body parts that were once off-limits. PRRfan (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Describe it once that way, then just call it a pat-down. As it's written, it is pushing a POV. Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed one "extensive", left two; satisfied? PRRfan (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Still not liking it that much. For example, one phrasing left in is "new, more extensive pat-downs". Okay, more extensive than what? It's a new process - describe it at the top of the November 2010 section as an extensive pat-down, then just call it a pat-down. As far as I can tell, TSA has only that one pat-down process. I've tweaked the wording some in that section, based on my comments. Also, TSA spells it as pat-down, so I'm making the spelling in the section consistent with that. Ravensfire (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Like the edits; thanks. Made one change to reflect one option for passengers. As for the "new patdowns": Ah, I see. If one didn't realize that TSA patted passengers down before the new scanner/patdown policy, one wouldn't understand why it's necessary to clarify that TSA folks are touching passengers in more places. Here's the TSA Blog post noting that there's something new going on: "enhanced pat downs", as they spell it here. Next on our to-do list: finding a WP:RS description of the old-fashioned non-enhanced patdowns. PRRfan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBS Poll

Why are phone-based polls even cited anymore? Younger people who tend to be more liberal don't use land lines like the older generations. Unless cell phones were included, the poll shouldn't be given any merit. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of incidents from 2010 screening procedures

This list has kinda been bugging me for a bit. There's absolutely no question that there have been and will be more incidents around the screening procedures. Which ones make the list? Should there be a list at all? This section easily has the capacity to grow to ridiculous lengths. It's a useful list, because there are going to be incidents that will be extreme (think of the sheer number of screenings that get done - some will go badly). IIf the list continues to grow, I think we should start to limit it to those that gain significant media exposure beyond just that one day or that result in a successful lawsuit (or at least a lawsuit that isn't quickly dismissed). Right now it's at 12 entries. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes; certainly all of these can't be encyclopedic. You propose two good guidelines -- widespread media coverage and lawsuits -- but I wonder whether, beyond just those, there is some way to preserve at least a flavor of the wide variety of ways TSA searches went wrong, and which led to the unprecedented public discontent.PRRfan (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Scanner image (part 2)

A few months ago we had a discussion about the scanner images used on this article (see Scanner Image section above). From the discussion, we removed the image of Hallowell because it did not accurately reflect the images actually displayed by the equipment the TSA uses. We found replacement images that did accurately portray what the agents see and those have been added to the article. The Hallowell image has been added back to the article. I removed it, pointing to the earlier discussion and the same editor put it back. As before, my objections to this image is that it is adding incorrect information to the article to push a POV. The image is entirely correct for the Backscatter X-ray article, but not here. The images here should show what the TSA agents actually see. I'm removing the image again, with a pointer to this discussion and also will ask the editor to comment here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I inserted all four pictures [1], file:Backscatter x-ray image woman.jpg, file:Brijot_millimeter_wave.jpg, file:Backscatter large.jpg, file:Mmw large.jpg, to ilustrate the different scanning technologies, not to prove a point. walk victor falk talk 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The facial blurring is irrelevant as to the concerns of privacy. They are about being seen naked. walk victor falk talk 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
So showing an image that utterly misrepresents what is seen doesn't bother you? There is a debate about privacy, but when you put an image that the agents cannot see, you poison the debate to push a POV. We should have images that factually show what is there, and the Halloway image does not. I've also removed it again - please leave the image out until this is settled (WP:BRD. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wp:bold and inserted the four pictures. You reverted. Now we discuss. walk victor falk talk 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Ravensfire assessment and my position has not changed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the picture on the right "utterly misrepresent" the one the left? For comparaison.

Image added by walk victor falk talk 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do either of those accurately represent what TSA agents will see? And as an aside, I'm disappointed that you decided to continue the edit war on this. I'm going to post this dispute to the NPOV noticeboard to bring in some other views. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Takes two to tango. Either neither of us is editwarring or both are. Flinging around accusations of such does not help in creating a reasonable discussion climate. The primary purpose of the facial blurring is to avoid TSA employees being distracted. It is a feature of human face perception to be attracted to anything that resembles a face (pareidolia or the "smiley effect"). This helps them concentrates on the bodies, and as such the facial blurring is secondary.walk victor falk talk 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If this image is not representative of anything currently in use by the TSA, it really shouldn't be in this article. To me, it seems akin to putting an image of an F-22 fighter on the Iranian Air Force page. While the Iranian Air Force uses fighters, and the F-22 is a fighter, the F-22 is not a type of fighter aircraft currently being used by Iran. While the TSA uses backscatter imaging, and the picture is of a backscatter image, it is not the type of image currently being used by the TSA. Sperril (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean, "not currently in use"? Has the TSA decided to abandon backscatter X-rays? Why? walk victor falk talk 19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The machines that the TSA are currently viewing the imagery on do not currently display an image like the above. Is that more clear? Note that I don't know this to be a fact. Of all the images in this article, this is the only one I have not found on the TSA's website. This leads me to believe that it is not an accurate example of the images that a TSA screener sees on the equipment they are using. If you have a WP:RS that says otherwise, please share. Second note, apparently the image has been removed. Please come up with a source before you put it back in. Thanks. Sperril (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This comment could be interpreted as only TSA-approved pictures are allowed in this article. Do you wish to qualify this comment? walk victor falk talk 21:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't want to qualify it. I don't see how I can make myself any more clear than I did above. Sperril (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You want to put an image implying that it is what TSA will see. That is false. We HAVE images that DO show what the agents actually see. Your image is pushing a POV that the agents will see more detail than they actually do. This article should stick with the images that accurately portray what is shown. Ravensfire (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Raven. How do you do? I am curious, are you interested in amateur photography? Perhaps you're familiar with basics like focal length, exposure, illumination, etc. A scanner is exactly the same, only it does in other wavelengths of the Electro-magnetic spectrum (EMS for short). Your eyes or a camera are sensitive to 400-700 nanometres (a.k.a visible light), while a scanner reacts to another colour, like X-rays or microwaves. You must be familiar with Photoshop or MS paint; the software that TSA employees use is a graphics editing program, specialised for the scanner images. Now fire you favourite photo editor, load a picture (preferably of a naked body for versimilitude) and play around with contrast, blur, distort, invert colours, pixellate, negative, filters, etc. Now do it again, only this time zoom in and out, at different sizes, anything between 400% and over 9000%. Most of the time, that's what you'd see, a blur of pixels. The settings that maximize visibility of prohibited materials are not the same than those that maximize luridity. But the question is about the potential, what happens if you crank the dial to 11. That's what picture illustrates. Let's take a practical example. A photographer going to take a picture of you naked with this camera. Being a decent person, you're a bit worried. No worry! He'll just nudge the dial so you become out of focus before he shoots. The thing is, while he is adjusting, he can see you as clearly as he might within the technical limitations of the camera. walk victor falk talk 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh the snarkiness! I am undone! Woe is me!

Oh. Wait. It's just the usual Victor tactic. Dang it, and I was so hopeful for you, for a bit. I regret, however, that while it seems you are familiar with many things, the concept of fairly and accurately presenting images is beyond that. The image is not representative of what TSA agents can see. It's that simple. You dance and dance around it, but that is what every other editor commenting on this has pointed out to you. Ravensfire (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I am sorry that you interpreted my trying to have a lighter tone as snarkiness. I am speaking of the heart of the matter, which is what humans sees, and TSA people are human, no? walk victor falk talk 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TSA not a law enforcement agency, should be moved out of that index.

The TSA does not enforce laws, nor can they arrest or detain anyone without local law enforcement. The TSA is not comprised of sworn law officers, either. The TSA is responsible for enforcing bans (which are not backed by law, only internal policy.) They do, however, oversee the Federal Air Marshal Service which is a law enforcement agency that consists of sworn officers who may make arrests, detain, Mirandize, etc.

I suggest it be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protective_service_agencies as this seems a closer fit.

Sources: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=law%20enforcement%20agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_agency

68.193.83.188 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it oversees FAMS it is therefore a law enforcement agency. furthermore, like most government agencies it has it's own internal affairs office which is comprised of Special Agents, again a law enforcement function. Again, therefore it is a law enforcement agency, albeit only one or two offices out of the entire agency. --TUFKAAP (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Medical insensitivity

Again, to the same man:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/passenger-thomas-sawyer-left-covered-in-urine-from-airport-patdown-again/story-e6frfq80-1226102476503

Why don't passengers get the choice of being patted down in private? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.51.140 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed 'racial slurs' section

I searched for any evidence of this and could not find any web pages or news stories. This section has been tagged as [citation needed] since April.

The wikicode of the section I removed is as follows:

Racial slurs

In a reversal of established public policy,[citation needed] the TSA, defended by US Federal Attorney Thomas Helper, defined the TSA's position on racial slurs in the case Bruno et al v. TSA. The TSA states that a racial slur or racial stereotype is offensive to the victim only if the person making the racial slur intends the racial slur to be offensive.[citation needed]

KJBurns (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrested TSA Officers

Why is this section even on that page? Is there a reason for it? Are you going to try and mark down every single person who was arrested? I believe that entire section should be removed. 24.193.81.50 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems problematic to me too, as does the section after it. Dredging up every incident with any employee is somewhere in the NPOV/UNDUE sort of range, with a tasty dash of NOTNEWS. I'd be open to keeping the general topic if there were news articles whose subject was the more general issue of arrested TSA officiers, or for single incidents that gained widespread and sustained coverage, but right now this feels like a laundry list. --joe deckertalk to me 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A third for removing this or stubbing it off and linking from the "misconduct" section.


The reason this is on the page is most other police agency articles document misconduct by the agency. There is no other one-sorce on the net for a listing of cited cases of TSA misconduct and arrest. Such a listing is useful to the public. Did I just del someone's signature on the above comment? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of citations

It appears some sources/citations are duplicates - e.g.: -#69 and #157 are the exact same citation: "3 ex-TSA workers plead guilty to theft". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. September 24, 2005. Retrieved August 2, 2008. -#70 and #155 too: "TSA Baggage Screeners Exposed". CBS Evening News. September 13, 2004. Retrieved August 2, 2008.

I have not exhaustively checked all references - please consider amending these. Apapadop (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gate rape

No mention of this in the target article... is this redirect needed? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe - did a quick google for the term and while most of them were useless dreck, here's one from the first page that I could see supporting the redirect. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Second thought - looked like a fair number of the results were from late November / early December 2010 and the redirect was from Dec 13, 2010, so maybe on the tail end of when that term was being tossed around, but plausible, especially back then. Ravensfire (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Need balanced info

This article focuses almost soley on the negative. I am not saying the negative items are wrong. They most certainly aren't but there must be positives as well. The article is not nuetral and needs balance 99.190.229.171 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)BeaMyra

You're welcome to your opinion. The way I see it, the article starts with nearly 1,800 words (from the introduction to the section about "November 2010 Enhanced Screening Procedures") before it even begins to mention "negative items", much less do so in an arguably NPOV way. Can you back up your opinion with examples and argument? In the meantime, I've removed the POV tag from the article. PRRfan (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
...but there isn't any positive to report. They waste billions, they annoy and harass everyone who has to put up with them, they steal from everyone, and they're generally a pain in the ass for anyone who might consider boarding a jet. They haven't caught a single thing since their inception and they don't make flying any safer. I say the article is perfectly balanced. There is no positives to report, so it makes sense that there are no positives listed here. 74.240.230.64 (talk)

zero terrorists captured

Shouldn't somewhere in the article mention that the TSA since its inception has never caught a terrorist, and that terrorists still got aboard airplanes after 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.96.201 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The TSA's motto: "Dominate. Intimidate. Control."

After reading about that in at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/18/tsa-mission-creep-us-police-state I came to add that to the article, but can't figure out where to stick it and how. It is important that be in the article though, showing their mentality. Dream Focus 12:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Airports toy with the idea of tossing the TSA

Privatizing security won't affect the cost or protocol, but could bolster efficiency and customer relations according to the report shown here.--Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see the TSA federally detroyed. Defunded, debunked, all employees told to bugger off, etc etc. The TSA serves no useful purpose, and it's the reason I refuse to fly. 74.240.230.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive bot

...and speaking of unwieldy, this talk page now contains 47 threads, some dating back to 2005. I've set up an autoarchiver so that it will archive any threads that haven't been used in 90 days, always leaving at least the six most recent threads on the page. If there are any objections, though, just let me know or feel free to revert me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Indiscriminate collection of information

If not already too unwieldy, this article will be too unwieldy soon due to the long number of small incidents being added to it. What about creating a WP:SPINOFF article here titled something like List of incidents involving Transportation Security Administration employees? -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I second this. It's important to ensure each incident is made as public as possible, but the article cannot become too unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.124.40 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No spin off, no inclusion. Its just a gripe list of complaints of no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not here to "make each incident as public as possible" - we are here to write an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Now WAIT a minute. These are not trivial incidents, and everything that was linked was reported by mainstream media sources (which were included). That's well within Wikipedia's policy. Why, then, was this material removed? I was in favor of allowing it to become a second page, but to delete has some rather Orwellian implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.124.40 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to trivial matter in the "Incidents" section

The whole "Incidents" section is UNDUE attention to trivial events. If an item here actually mattered, such impact should be worthy of including in the general history/body of the article. If it has had no such impact, it is mere trivia and part of a gripe list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

These are not trivial incidents. These were serious lapses of judgement that were reported by mainstream media sources and even caused debate in Congress. It seems they were deleted without proper discussion - we should move them to a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.124.40 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of disorganized, undue, and NPOV (on both sides) wandering around in that article. I've spent a couple hours trying to rearrange it, but I've probably only gotten through a tenth of the work that could actually be usefully done. And I've probably introduced some problems, too, so, have at. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree 97.81.124.40. I don't see anything wrong with this section at this time and I'm removing the tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of passengers who have attempted to bring firearms

I find this new paragraph suspect: "The number of passengers who have attempted to bring firearms..." While the Boston Globe is certainly a reliable source for most things, this one reads like an opinion piece from the TSA blog. For one thing, TSA can't possibly know how many passengers attempt to bring firearms on board. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Transportation Security Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The image of the master keys is being used here in violation of copyright. It is not a work of the US Government, it is the work of github user Xyl2k. I don't know how to report this, as the image is hosted at WM Commons. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Organizational structure

Is this section really necessary? It's unsourced, likely to become outdated, and not very interesting. Readers can probably find the latest structure at the TSA web site if they really need it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transportation Security Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken Links

I noticed that citation link 131 and 132 link to deleted or moved pages. Should they be removed or should an attempt be made to find the orginal article?

BluBolt (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Also Noticed that the bolded section 2015 Disability Incident has no citation or source for the info. Same question as aboveBluBolt (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Accountiablity Act of 2015

Should there be a section about the TSA OFFICE OF INSPECTION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015? Its a report by the Committee on Commence, Science, and Transportation stating that the TSA's criminal investigators in the Office of Investigation are doing their fair share of work despite the premium pay they get, or is this too specific? BluBolt (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Introduction summary

The last sentence about the enhanced pat down, is that necessary to include that in the topic on the introduction when there is a section in the Screening processes and regulations dedicated to it? nikki.morgan 68.101.248.183 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Nikki.morgan (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Uniforms

This section only talks about the new uniforms. This section should also include the old uniforms and why these uniforms were changed. The old uniforms had badges but they were embroidered on the uniform itself. Why are the new badges a controversy and the old ones were not? nikki.morgan 68.101.248.183 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Nikki.morgan (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Shooting and airport attacks

There have been many issues that are in the airports and TSA employees, why are these the only ones included in the article? nikki.morgan68.101.248.183 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Nikki.morgan (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Enhanced screening procedures and Pat-downs

How is the new pat-down enhanced? The pat-down procedures that deal with the sensitive areas such as the genitals, breast, and buttocks are search with the back of the TSO's hand, so there is no groping of the passenger being screened.

The area listed as Pat-downs, there is a link to frisking with the area. Pat-downs and frisking are two different things.

nikki.morgan68.101.248.183 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Nikki.morgan (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Bias

It seems to me that the article is biased in that it criticizes the TSA a lot, but provides little to no examples of where the TSA was good and helpful. Trying to write a quick piece about the TSA, kinda hard to showcase the good parts if there are none provided... 206.191.148.74 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past I haven't been able to find much "good" TSA info that wasn't sourced to TSA itself. If you can find something, go ahead and add it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a majority of this article is biased and shows only the negative aspects of TSA. Perhaps some deeper insight of the goals of TSA when it was first implemented and how or if TSA has reached those goals. nikki.morgan68.101.248.183 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Nikki.morgan (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, at Wikipedia, what we add to articles depends on that first being covered in reliable, independent sources. WP:RS and such. If you feel that there are positive aspects of the TSA which are not being covered, and they are represented in respected, third-party publications produced independently from the source, than they should make an excellent starting point for such an addition, and they absolutely should be added. If there are no such sources, well, then, adding material from lesser sources would be a case of false balance. --joe deckertalk 07:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
(Similarly, if there are negative comments from unreliable or involved sources, they should be considered for removal. But it's much easier to address concerns such as this when you have concrete examples.) --joe deckertalk 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no good thing to say about the TSA. Their chief purpose is to foil terrorist attacks. There is absolutely no evidence they have stopped a single terrorist attack in the 15 years they have operated. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/18284511954/whether-not-tsa-has-ever-caught-terrorist-is-apparently-state-secret.shtml Given their PR problems, I think it's safe to say that if they had, they would mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7580:A2:4994:6C5C:FAEC:1A2D (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Point of the TSA?

We waste billions of dollars on the TSA. But for what? They don't make flying any more secure. They harass passengers. They violate passengers' privacy. Their laughable incompetence is legendary. They steal from passengers. They steal from the airlines themselves, albiet indirectly. Everyone I know, everyone I talk to, all of them swear off flying if they can drive there instead. I'm of the same mindset. I flat out refuse to be belittled and demeaned in that manner, so I'll just drive instead, and if I can't drive there I just won't visit there.

I think we should just abolish the TSA entirely and be done with the matter. No replacement, just get rid of them entirely and send their funding to NASA. The money would be better spent installing a moonbase or three. 74.240.230.64 (talk)

This is the place to discuss improvements to the article, not to debate it. 72.42.152.174 (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Transportation Security Administration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transportation Security Administration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Transportation Security Administration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Transportation Security Administration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transportation_Security_Administration/Archive_1&oldid=1137265568"