Rescheduled webinar on sex toys and the TSA in two days

On Thursday March 28, AirSafe.com will host a live webinar on how TSA rules affect passengers who fly with one or more sex toys.

While the TSA for the most part does an outstanding job of protecting the flying public, sometimes they compromise a passenger's privacy and dignity while doing so.

There have been a number of cases where TSA representatives exposed passengers to unnecessary embarrassment and humiliation because the passenger was traveling with a sex toy. In at least one case from 2011, a TSA screener was fired for leaving an inappropriate message in a checked bag containing a sex toy.

This webinar will discuss TSA rules with respect to what is allowed in checked and carry-on bags, with an emphasis on what sex toys and sex toy accessories are allowed in flight.

The webinar will also provide advice on what passengers can do to minimize or eliminate problems with TSA security screening, and suggest specific steps to take if the TSA fails to act in a professional manner. In addition, the webinar will discuss how rules and customs concerning sex toys may differ when traveling outside of the US.

Register for the webinar today!

Note: This webinar was orginally scheduled for February 28, 2013. If you registered for the original webinar, please re-register using the above link

---

Previous webinar
Last week's webinar discussed the upcoming changes to the TSA's rules on traveling with knives and other potential weapons items in carry-on baggage. If you missed last week's webinar, check out the following resources:
Video of previous TSA webinar
List of upcoming changes to TSA prohibited items list

Webinar: How to Fly with a Sex Toy under TSA Rules

On Thursday March 28, AirSafe.com will host a live webinar on how TSA rules affect passengers who fly with one or more sex toys. While the TSA for the most part does an outstanding job of protecting the flying public, sometimes they compromise a passenger's privacy and dignity while doing so.

There have been a number of cases where TSA representatives exposed passengers to unnecessary embarrassment and humiliation because the passenger was traveling with a sex toy. In at least one case from 2011, a TSA screener was fired for leaving an inappropriate message in a checked bag containing a sex toy.

This webinar will discuss TSA rules with respect to what is allowed in checked and carry-on bags, with an emphasis on what sex toys and sex toy accessories are allowed in flight.

The webinar will also provide advice on what passengers can do to minimize or eliminate problems with TSA security screening, and suggest specific steps to take if the TSA fails to act in a professional manner. In addition, the webinar will discuss how rules and customs concerning sex toys may differ when traveling outside of the US.

Register for the webinar today!

Note: This webinar was orginally scheduled for February 28, 2013. If you registered for the original webinar, please re-register using the previous link

TSA officer in alleged sexual assault while in uniform

On November 20, 2011, Harold Glenn Rodman, a 52-year-old TSA employee who lives in Manassas, Virginia, was arrested and later charged with several felonies, including three sexual assault related charges (aggravated sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and forcible sodomy) and one kidnapping related charge (abduction with intent to defile). Details on these charges, which are based on a number of records from the Prince William County (Virginia) General District Court and the Prince William County (Virginia) Police Department, are available at http://www.airsafe.com/issues/security/tsa-rodman-charges.pdf

According to the Prince William County Police Department and several media reports, On November 20, 2011, at 3:25 am, police responded to a reported sexual assault of a 37-year-old woman in Manassas, Virginia. The victim and a friend were in a vehicle when they were allegedly approached by an unknown man, later identified as Rodman. The victim was allegedly assaulted after she stepped out of the car to talk with the suspect. The man was allegedly wearing a TSA uniform and displayed a badge before sexually assaulting the victim. Rodman allegedly fled the scene on foot, but was later arrested while coming out of his residence.

News report of the assault

These were serious charges, especially disturbing because it involves an alleged abuse of authority by an off-duty TSA security officer. The immediate TSA response indicated that the organization was addressing this recent situation appropriately. According to a TSA official, “This individual was immediately removed from security operations pending an investigation. The Privacy Act precludes the agency from disclosing additional information regarding personnel actions.” The official said that “TSA holds its personnel to the highest professional and ethical standards, and investigates all allegations of misconduct. TSA is working closely with local law enforcement on this matter...the disturbing allegations against this individual in no way reflect the work of the more than 50,000 security officers who every day ensure the security of the traveling public.”

This TSA response deals with the immediate situation with the one accused employee, but it does not address several key questions about what processes the TSA may have in place to prevent people with previous criminal convictions from entering the TSA workforce. In the case of the accused TSA employee Harold Rodman, his name did not come up in a search (conducted December 11, 2011) of either the Virginia State Police database of convicted sex offenders, or the US Department of Justice national database of sex offenders. However, for the other 50,000 TSA security officers, the Rodman situation brings up an issue previously discussed in a November 2010 AirSafeNews article, which asked whether the TSA was allowing convicted rapists to perform pat-down searches of airline passengers.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent organization of the TSA, hinted that potential employees with serious criminal convictions may have made it through TSA's employee screening process. In 2004, the DHS released a report that specified 28 kinds of felony convictions that would have disqualified an applicant for a TSA screener position, including rapes or crimes involving aggravated sexual abuse, but only if those convictions had occurred in the previous 10 years. The report implied that a person convicted of rape, attempted rape, child molestation, or similar crimes may not be required to report such convictions during their background check if those convictions were more than 10 years old, or if the convictions were less serious than a felony.

Are there sexual predators at the TSA?
The key issue, then and now, was whether the current TSA screening process would prevent the hiring of anyone who has been found guilty of any crime that involves rape or some similar criminal act, or if already an employee, if that employee would be kept away from direct contact with passengers. Most passengers may want to know if the TSA officer who could be conducting an intimate pat-down search or who may have access to images from advanced screening devices has a record of inappropriate, abusive, or illegal sexual conduct. The TSA's public statements on the screening process for TSA's employees don't indicate if this is something that is done for all employees. Also, the TSA doesn't make it clear what kind of conduct or convictions would either keep someone from being hired or would prevent them from having personal contact with passengers after they have been hired.

Is the TSA protecting the public from predators?
If the TSA could answer the following questions, questions taken directly from the November 2010 article, it would go a long way toward reducing the risk the public would face from sexual assault by TSA employees:

• Are there any current TSA employees who are convicted sex offenders (either for a felony or lesser crime, either as an adult or juvenile), even if the conviction occurred more than 10 years before joining TSA?
  
  
• If the answer to the first question is yes, are any of these employees acting as security screeners who have direct physical contact with the flying public?
  
  
• If the answer to the first question is no, have all TSA employees, as part of their background check, been asked if they have been convicted of rape or some other sexually based crime, whether it were a felony or lesser crime, either as an adult or as a juvenile, even if the conviction occurred more than 10 years before joining TSA?
  
  
• If the first question can't be answered for a TSA employee because of inadequate information, would this employee be restricted from working in a position that involves direct physical contact with the flying public?
  
  
• Are TSA security screeners who are convicted of rape or another sexually based crime, no matter how minor, immediately removed from any position where they may have physical contact with the traveling public?

Share your ideas on making TSA better
Any screening process, no matter how rigorous, is perfect. Any organization as large as the TSA will have a few people who do not measure up to a reasonable standard of competence or excellence. However, that is no excuse for the current situation where the average passenger is unsure if the person wearing the uniform can be trusted. While the questions listed above are a good start, there is room for improvement. Please feel free to add your suggestions as to how this current TSA situation should be addressed.

Early responses

• Full Federal & State record searches back to when the applicant reached majority. No 'sealed records' applicants need apply. Zero tolerance for any type of assault. I want to be safe, not assaulted. Slightly off-topic-yet-related... Perhaps the TSA should begin their focus on passengers as they arrive for booking / enter the terminal very similar to El-Al's approach. Look for someone acting suspicious instead of reacting to an out-of-date threat.


• (Do) The same thing they do for convicted drug dealers.


• (Do) Nothing, it's never been a problem.


• What keeps someone from committing the first sexual assault ever as a TSA employee, just because someone does not have a record doesn't mean that some day they wont be arrested for sexual assault, it is tough if not impossible to screne.


• The TSA should be closed and the security should be turned back over to the airlines.


• Disband. If having naked pictures taken of you and/or being groped by a stranger aren't violations of the "unreasonable search and seizure" ban in the U.S. Constitution, then what is?!?!?!?!

---

How to Fly with a Sex Toy

Last month, writer and attorney Jill Filipovic was on an international flight from Newark, NJ to Dublin, Ireland, and upon arrival found in her checked bag a printed advisory from the TSA stating that her bag had been opened and inspected by the TSA. In the margin of the note, a TSA screener added an extra message saying "Get your freak on girl." The checked bag had contained a sex toy, and presumably the message was related to the presence of that device.


The extra inspection of a checked bag was a normal TSA procedure. The additional comments were not part of a normal procedure, and TSA representative Kawika Riley later apologized for that screener's behavior and described it as "highly inappropriate and unprofessional." That TSA screener was later fired.

Issues brought up by this incident
This incident brings up two important issues for passengers. First, the legal rights passengers have when it comes to traveling with sex toys, and second, how passengers can travel safely travel with these items.

What is a sex toy?
A sex toy is an object or device that is primarily used to enhance or facilitate sexual pleasure. Sex toys include things like dildos and vibrators, and can be made from a variety of materials, including glass, wood, plastic, silicone, or latex. While some sex toys are designed to resemble male or female human genitals, many are not. Also, while many other common items may have a secondary use as a sex toy, this article is focused on those items that have been designed to be used primarily as a sex toy.

What are the laws or rules concerning air travel with sex toys?
The laws, rules, and regulations concerning travel with sex toys depend on where you travel. In general, when you travel domestically within a country, you should observe the appropriate laws and regulations of that country. When you travel between countries, you have to consider the laws of the country you are traveling from, the country you are traveling to, and any country you may be passing through on the way to your destination.

In the US, when it comes to flying on airliners or going through TSA security, the only limits that matter are the normal limits on hazardous or banned items. While there may be local or state laws restricting the possession of sex toys, there are no federal restrictions on ownership. If you review AirSafe.com's page on prohibited and restricted items, you will see that the TSA would likely not have a reason to ban most sex toys.

Tips for traveling with sex toys
There are a number of common sense things that you can do to protect your sex toys and to limit the likelihood that the TSA will cause you any embarrassment or excessive delays:

• Tell the truth: If a TSA screener asks you what is in your baggage just say what it is.
  
• Remove batteries: This suggestion applies to any battery-powered item in your baggage that won't be used in flight.
  
  
• Put your items in separate clear plastic bags: Keeping items in Ziploc type bags keeps them from being contaminated by handling by TSA screeners.
  
  
• Don't pack banned items: Most sharp items, and liquid filled or gel filled items are typically banned from carry on baggage, but can be packed in checked luggage.

Complaining about your treatment
Although traveling with sex toys is completely legal in the US, you may still encounter TSA officials whose conduct toward you may be rude or unprofessional. If this happens at a security screening area, you should immediately request to see a supervisor to discuss the matter. You also have several options for submitting a formal complaint. You could email the TSA’s Contact Center at: TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov, or if you believe you have been the target of discriminatory conduct you contact the TSA Office of Civil Rights and Liberties.

For detailed advice on how to complain about your treatment, you may want to review AirSafe.com's complaint resources at http://www.airsafe.com/complain/complain.htm

Resources
Listen to the podcast episode
Get the AirSafe.com Baggage and Security Guide

Does the TSA unfairly discriminate against private sector competitors?

In a memo released late last month, TSA administrator John Pistole decided to freeze a program that had allowed airports to use private contractors in place of TSA personnel to handle passenger screening duties at airports. The Screening Partnership Program, which had been in place at 16 airports, had several additional airports applying to the program at the time that Pistole made his decision.

This decision has been lauded and criticized by different airline security stakeholders. According to a report in FederalTimes.com, two unions vying to represent about 40,000 TSA screeners were in favor of the decision, while US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica, who is in favor of privatization, stated that he planned to launch an investigation into the decision.

To the average air traveler, this decision does not change their airport experience, and according to the General Accounting Office, there is no real difference between the performance of the private companies and TSA when it comes to screening. Why then would something like this be of any concern to the flying public? Before answering that question, it may help to have a bit of background information about this program.

Quick overveiw of the Screening Partnership Program
The Screening Partnership Program, which was created by the TSA because it was required to by federal law, allowed airports to use private contractors to provide the kinds of screening services normally provided by the TSA. All of this would be under federal oversight, with a TSA security representative ensuring that the contractor meets the appropriate airports security standards.

Why did TSA director Pistole freeze the program?
Prior to last month's announcement by Pistole, there was no real public debate or any prior significant statement about any potential change in the program. Pistole's statement also didn't provided any hint of who within TSA leadership besides Pistole was involved in the decision. The brief statement implied that the freeze had nothing to do with performance or security screening problems at any of the 16 airports currently using the program, and also stated that airports currently using private contractors could continue to do so. The following is Pistole's full statement that was released by the TSA on January 28, 2011:

Shortly after beginning as TSA Administrator, I directed a full review of TSA policies with the goal of helping the agency evolve into a more agile, high-performing organization that can meet the security threats of today and the future. As part of that review, I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time. The airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be regulated by TSA and required to meet our high security standards.

Reading between the lines, there are two implications in this statement. First, the 16 airports currently using private contractors are currently meeting TSA's security standards. The second implication is that allowing other airports to privatize the TSA's screening function would somehow keep the TSA from improving its performance and make it less able to respond to current and future threats.

Do these reasons make sense?
There may be a substantial amount of thought and analysis that went into Pistole's decision, but the TSA has not made that part of their decision process public. Outsiders, including airport operators and the flying public are forced to evaluate this decision based on TSA's public statements and their actions.

Based on Pistole's public statements, and on the fact that the TSA is allowing the the current contractors to remain, it appears as though all the private companies involved in the Screening Partnership Program are meeting all the relevant security and screening requirements, implying that expanding the program would have no negative effects on security. Based on this admittedly scant evidence, it seems that Pistole is concerned that having more airports in this program would somehow compromise security at one or more of the airports where the TSA does the security screening.

In a recent TSA blog post from February 7th, the TSA stated that "TSA is still accepting applications, but unless a clear and substantial advantage to do so emerges in the future, the requests will not be approved." The announcement of January 28 and the blog post from February 7 imply that the TSA is arguing the following:

• The current airports participating in the Screening Partnership Program are as effective as airports that use TSA personnel and can continue to stay in the program
  
  
• Having additional airports in the Screening Partnership Program will prevent the rest of the TSA from evolving into a more effective organization
  
  
• New airports can enter the Screening Partnership Program only if they can demonstrate that they have substantial advantages over the TSA
  
  
• The 16 airports currently in the program don't have to demonstrate that they have substantial advantages over the TSA

Taken together, the TSA's statements don't clearly answer the question of whether the decision makes sense, because TSA has simply not provided enough information about the factors that went into its decision, or what factors would lead the TSA to accept or reject any new applications. More disturbing, some of TSA's statements imply that it is actively discriminating against private contractors, specifically the statement that new airports will be approved for the program only if they can demonstrate that they have substantial advantages over the TSA.

This implies that the TSA's leadership believes one of two things, either their procedures and requirements are adequate, but private competitors have a responsibility to show an extra level of competence; or that current TSA procedures and requirements are not adequate and private contractors need to be better than the TSA in order to provide an adequate level of security. In other words, TSA's statements imply that it is acceptable for their leadership to allow separate and unequal standards, with one set of standards for its own employees, and a higher one for potential private competitors.

It may be harsh to use words like discrimination and phrases like separate and unequal when describing the logic behind TSA's recent decisions on private sector alternatives to passenger screening, but given their public statements, it may be appropriate to do so.

What has the TSA done for you lately?

The past few weeks has seen the TSA come under tremendous amounts of well deserved public criticism for using an enhanced pat-down procedure along with new full body scanners to help keep explosives and other weapons off of airplanes.

The TSA's misguided efforts with respect to this passenger screening policy, as well as apparent serious shortcomings in TSA hiring procedures have been discussed at length in earlier AirSafeNews.com articles, and in unprecedented ways by the general public online and offline.

It would be easy and even entertaining to highlight multiple aspects of the latest TSA policy disaster, including:

• Reviewing some of the more interesting of the tens of thousands of TSA-related tweets from the past week (my favorite: "I wonder if TSA scanners can see through 6 feet of dirt to detect Founding Fathers turning in their graves"),
  
  
• Embed one or more hilarious video created in response to the TSA's policy, such as one from Saturday Night Live, and another from NMA TV (the folks who bring you computer simulations of unfaithful celebrities),
  
  
• Discuss the TSA's role in making the phrase "gate rape" an UrbanDictionary.com word of the day, or
  
  
• Chronicle desperate scramble by the TSA in the last 72 hours to change their policies in the face of massive pushback (eliminating enhanced pat-downs of children 12 and under, followed by no pat-downs or screenings of airline pilots, and most recently a promise to make the pat-down procedure less invasive)

Instead of kicking TSA when it's down and making it even more likely that current employees will erase their experience from their resumes, the rest of this article will focus on some of the positive things that TSA has done that have actually enhanced security.

Every week, TSA publishes the Transportation Suspicious Incident Report (TSIR), which provides a comprehensive review of suspicious incident reporting related to transportation. The TSIR includes incident reporting, analyses, images, and graphics on specific security related incidents. In addition, selected articles focus on security technologies, terrorism, and the persistent challenges of securing various transportation modes in the US. You can download three of the reports below:

- TSIR for 20 July 2007
- TSIR for 5 August 2010
- TSIR for 15 October 2010

All three of these reports were downloaded from PublicIntelligence.net, a site that provides access to corporate and government documents that are usually unavailable to the public. This site also provides a number of documents from the Department of Homeland Security, including an evaluation of the recent cargo bombing attempt from Yemen.

If you have any questions and comments may about the TSIR, you can contact the Transportation Security Administration, Office of Intelligence, Field Production Team at (703) 601-3142.

A note on classification
The document that were retrieved from PublicIntelligence.net contains information that the Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA, typically does not released released to the public or personnel who do not have a valid "need to know." Because these reports were obtained legally from a publicly available web site, unless you are bound by the appropriate regulations of a US government agency, you are free to download them and even distribute them. This is similar to the situation last December when TSA accidentally released a report containing sensitive security information. That report, “Screening Procedures: Standard Operating Procedures,” has been downloaded from AirSafe.com nearly 25,000 times in the last 12 months.

Related Resources
WTOP interview on November 16, 2010 with Dr. Todd Curtis about new TSA procedures (5:12)
Dr. Curtis discusses TSA hiring practices on Rudy Maxa's World (10:40)

Airline travel issues and the iPad

Apple recently released their new iPad computer. While much of the media coverage has focused on the technological innovations and limitations of the device, AirSafeNews.com has a different focus - how this type of computer will affect the average air traveler. After a couple of days of testing and evaluation, AirSafeNews.com's Todd Curtis has a few thoughts about this machine, and some of the issues this device may raise for air travelers.

Security issues and the iPad
For years, airline passengers have been required to take out laptops and other large electronic devices out of their carry on baggage for separate screening at checkpoints. The classic laptop computer opens up like a clam shell to reveal a keyboard and a screen. Given the design of the iPad (it has no keyboard) and it's relatively small size and light weight (much smaller and lighter than the average Oprah magazine), it does not make sense to treat this device as one would a laptop computer. In other words, there is no real need to take it out for separate screening.

One could certainly make the argument that it is possible that someone bent on destroying an aircraft could pack an iPad with explosives, making it necessary to separately screen the device. However, the counter argument is that there are many other items (including the aforementioned Oprah) that have much more room to work with than an iPad, and that don't have to be taken out of your carry on bag. Unless there is some other compelling circumstance, for example, a passenger selected for special screening, there is no reason for TSA to worry about an exploding iPad.

You should also take steps to protect your iPad from loss, theft, or damage. First, don't put it in checked baggage. The risk of damage from rough handling and theft is always high for expensive and fragile items like electronics. Also, if you are asked to check your carry on at the last minute, be sure to take out your iPad and other small and valuable items from your carry on and place them in a smaller bag that can fit under your seat.

Going online in the airport and in the air
While iPads have many functions that work without having access to the Internet, most of the really interesting functions require that you be online. Fortunately, airports around the US are embracing the use of free wi-fi in the terminals, making it easy to get online before you get on the plane. Only a handful of airlines offer any kind of in flight Internet access, so make sure you have your music, books, and videos loaded into your iPad before you take off.

In flight entertainment and common sense
While the iPad is not very convenient for doing typical business related functions like creating or editing documents, it is an excellent device for web surfing and video playing in small spaces like the typical seat back tray in coach. Given an estimated battery life of 10 hours, a passenger can provide entertainment during a transatlantic or transpacific flight.

Because of its ability to play very high resolution videos, it will be a great platform for playing movies, with better performance that most laptops when it comes to brightness and clarity.

The potential problem with that will be the choice of material and whether it is appropriate for an airline cabin. The iPad can also function as a giant iPod, and can play videos or movies stored in its memory. As AirSafe.com pointed out in an article about the appropriate use of personal electronic devices, there few airline policies that deal with what a passenger can or can't do with their personal entertainment devices. One common sense thing you should do is use headphones so that you don't disturb other passengers.

While there may not be any laws restricting what you can play on your iPad, any passenger with an iPad should use their common sense when it comes to videos and movies, especially when it comes to material that may be upsetting to your seatmate. For example, I'll have a personal rule of avoid playing in flight any of the plane crash related videos produced by AirSafe.com. To get an idea of what you won't be seeing on my iPad while I'm flying, check out the AirSafe.com video channel at YouTube.

New Security Measures in Effect for International Flights

As of January 4th, the US government started new security requirements for international flights with a US destination. While some of the measures are temporary, others may be more permanent.

Travelers Subject to Enhanced Screening
The TSA is requiring that everyone flying into the US who is either traveling from or traveling through nations considered to be are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. At present, those countries include Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

This may not represent much of a change. In the security procedures manual that was accidentally released to the public by the TSA last year, on page 81 it listed 12 countries whose citizens were subject to additional screening. Of the 14 listed above, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia were not listed in the earlier procedures manual, and North Korea, which was listed in the procedures manual, was not listed in last week's announcement.

Changes in Prohibited Items
Security requirements for passengers departing US airports remain the same, but additional security measures may be used. TSA will continue to permit prescription liquid medications and other liquids needed by persons with disabilities and medical conditions.

The TSA has stated that passengers wearing loose fitting or bulky clothing, including headwear, may be subject to additional screening. If a passengers chooses not to remove bulky clothing or headwear, they may be subject to a pat down search.

When to Arrive at the Airport
The TSA advises passengers on international flights bound to the US allow additional time to get through security, and to check in with their airport or airline for more specific advice.

Other Security Changes
While some changes were required by TSA, individual airlines may have additional rules or restrictions. Some of the ones reported in the last week include turning off electronic equipment remaining seated during an extended period before landing, keeping laps clear of items such as blankets for large portions of the flight, and additional restrictions on when the lavatories can be used. TSA does not manage security for airports outside of US territory, so each country may have additional restrictions and requirements.

Canadian Airports Put on High Alert
Last Saturday, Canadian airports were put on heightened alert after Transport Canada received credible evidence of a new terrorist threat. A member of the AirSafeNews.com audience who traveled from Canada to the US in the last couple of days said that in addition to a pat down search and a search of carry on bags, laptop bags with wheels were not allowed on board. While it may have been to prevent travelers from claiming that a bag was a laptop bag and not a carry on, the rule has also been enforced for true laptop cases that happen to have wheels. This new rule forced the person who submitted this report to exit the secure area, spend $140 for a new laptop case, and clear customs a second time.

Additional Resources
Permitted and Prohibited Items

CHQR Radio Interview About Attempted Bombing of Northwest Flight 253

Dr. Curtis and host of the Calgary Today show Whitney Dean of CHQR radio in Calgary, Canada discuss a number of issues related to the Christmas day bombing attempt on Northwest flight 253, including Nigerian airline security, a review of US terrorists databases, and the technologies and procedures that are currently used to prevent airliner bombing attempts. The following interview took place on 29 December 2009.

Listen to the interview (16:10)

WGN Radio Interview About Attempted Bombing of Northwest Flight 253

As information about the unsuccessful bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 continues to be uncovered, some are questioning the usefulness of some of the security measures being implemented, and whether profiling may be needed to deter attacks. The following interview was with WGN radio in Chicago on 29 December 2009

Listen to the interview (14:39)

BBC Interview About Attempted Bombing of Northwest Flight 253

As the investigation into the unsuccessful bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 enters its early stages, there are already several security issues that are being discussed by the media, including short term security measures and issues with US government terrorist databases.

Listen to the interview (4:09)

Continued Fallout from TSA Release of Sensitive Security Information

Rep. Peter King of the US House of Representatives recently sent a letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security (which oversees TSA), and among other requests asked DHS how it was addressing the repeated posting of the security manual on other web sites and "what legal actions, if any, could be taken to compel its removal."

AirSafeNews.com is not one of those sites that has posted copies of the unredacted security manual. However, it has provided links to both the redacted and unredacted versions of the document that are hosted by its partner site AirSafe.com.

However, by the time AirSafeNews.com first wrote about this document, it was already available in a wide variety of places, including major US media organizations like ABC News, and CBS News; and also at document sharing sites like Scribd.com. The document is also available at sites the specialize in releasing secret and restricted government and corporate documents such as Cryptome.com and Wikileaks.org. A search on Google or Bing would quickly reveal many other sites that have either the document or links to the document.

Even if all online copies were to disappear from the web tomorrow, it has likely already been downloaded millions of times around the world. The unredacted copy hosted at AirSafe.com was downloaded over 4,000 times in the first two days that it was available. The reality of the Internet is that it is an international enterprise, and no single nation, not even the United States, can eliminate access to a document. Once a document is available online, it is very, very difficult to make it unavailable online. Using legal means to remove the TSA document from the Internet would be at best an exercise in futility.

Survey Responses
Earlier this week, we put out a survey asking three questions about this latest TSA scandal. The survey in the article asked three questions, and 21 members of the AirSafe.com audience responded.

The the first question asked for a yes or no response. The second question had as response choices Yes, No, Maybe, and Other. The third question asked for a general response. The questions and their responses were as follows:

1. Did you download and review the TSA report?
Thirteen had downloaded the document, and eight did not.

2. Should the head of the TSA resign?
Nine believed that the head of the TSA should not resign, seven thought the head should resign, four said maybe, and one did not respond.

3. Tell Us What You Think About this Situation
The responses are included below with only slight editing for spelling and grammar:

• No-one should be exempted from screening now that we know who has been allowed in without a check.
  
  
• Whoever is in charge of the section responsible for dissemination of documents.
  
  
• It's unfortunate maybe the guy who didnt black out the areas correctly should resign.
  
  
• I do not care about very strict screening, it has to be, what matters to me is security.
  
  
• I downloaded the manual but did not review fully. Yes he should resign, same with the fellow that made the document public. TSA should learn from this and ensure they do not create additional work for themselves and avoidable delays for the rest of us at the airports.
  
  
• This was an accident; not so serious one, in my opinion.
  
  
• It puts the traveling public in danger.
  
  
• I think that if this is typical of how our government functions, then it's no wonder half of Americans have no faith in the ability of the government to run things like health care. Whoever is responsible for this error should be fired and steps should be taken to be sure this doesn't happen in the future. First of all they need a competent IT person to do this sort of thing.
  
  
• Absolutely unacceptable and sooooooo stupid!!
  
  
• Really? You people (presumably those behind AirSafeNews.com) are just feeding the fire and all of you who keep circulating this information should be tried as traitors to the US Constitution.
  
  
• Typical no-brainer attitude. Shouldn't try something unless you know what you are doing.
  
  
• I don't feel safer.
  
  
• Use it to prevent other occurrences...firing only encourages cover ups.
  
  
• The responsible employee should resign.

Related Articles
TSA Releases Extremely Sensitive Security Information Online
How the TSA Could Have Easily Avoided Its Recent Security Problem

Resources
Full TSA report
Redacted TSA report
TSA prohibited and restricted Items
TSA Statement from December 9, 2009
Original AirSafeNews.com article on this topic
NSA procedures for redacting a document
Microsoft advice for minimizing metadata in Word documents
Tools for removing hidden data from Government Computer News

Photo: gregoryjameswalsh

TSA Releases Extremely Sensitive Security Information Online

The latest TSA controversy involves an inadvertent release of a document containing very sensitive security information that resulted in making key security procedures available to the public. The document, “Screening Procedures: Standard Operating Procedures,” provided standard procedures for TSA screening personnel in airports. It was the third revision, and was dated 28 May 2008. The document contained a range of information, including some sensitive security information that was redacted by the TSA.

The TSA posted it on the web site FedBizOpps.gov in March 2009, and it was removed from the site this past Sunday after the TSA realized, with the help of a number of blogs including Wanderingaramean.com, that the blacked out portion did not hide the information. You can download the redacted version and see for yourself.

It appears that the part of the TSA responsible for releasing the document to the FedBizOpps.gov site had a fundamental misunderstanding of how electronic documents work. It's likely that when the TSA 'redacted' areas of sensitive information in the original word processing document, black rectangles were placed over those areas, covering the information, but not deleting it. By selecting the blackened areas in the PDF document, copying it, and pasting it into a word processing file in a program like MS Word, Notepad, or OpenOffice Writer, anyone can recover the information that was within those blackened areas.

By the time the TSA had the document removed from the FedBizOpps.gov web site, it was too late. Copies of the redacted and unredacted information were now widely available online, and the information that was once hidden from the pubic is now out in the open.

Potential Security Impacts
The aviation security manual included details on TSA procedures for screening passengers, special rules for handling the diplomats, law enforcement officials, and CIA employees, and the technical settings and tolerances used by metal and explosive detectors used at airports.

Some of the more sensitive details in the TSA document were not widely known prior to the release of this document. Clearly, anyone attempting to do harm to the US air transportation system may use this information to attempt to fraudulently gain access to airliners or to secure areas of an airport terminal, or to take prohibited items through TSA security. This breach of security may force the TSA to change one or more procedures, and may make current security procedures and technology either less effective, or completely ineffective against some threats.

Because details about aviation security procedural or policy changes are typically not released to the public or subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, it is unlikely that the public will be made aware of any TSA changes, unless of course such information is accidentally released.

Highlights of Redacted Information
The redacted sections of the document contained a range of information, some of it mundane, and others frightening. The highlights, with page numbers from the 93-page document, are below:

• There exists an explosives trace detection screening protocol in which a percentage of checked baggage is screened using closed bag search (40%), limited open bag search (40%), and full open bag search (20%) procedures (page 9).
  
  
• Transportation Security Officers should not handle explosives, incendiaries, or weapons if such items are discovered during the screening process (page 20).
  
  
• There are specific procedures to follow to check the credentials of law enforcement officers and other armed government employees (page 21).
  
  
• Calibration testing procedures for walk-through metal detectors (page 27).
  
  
• Daily testing procedures for walk-through metal detectors (page 28).
  
  
• Operational test procedure for x-ray systems (page 29).
  
  
• Contamination control procedures for explosives trace detection devices (page 30).
  
  
• Procedures for clearing armed security officers into the secure area of the terminal (pages 28-40).
  
  
• Procedures for the screening of foreign dignitaries being escorted by the Central Intelligence Agency (page 43-44).
  
  
• Screening exemptions for TSA employees (page 45).
  
  
• Categories of passengers who are to be exempted from closer scrutiny after initially being selected for extra screening (page 47).
  
  
• Alternate screening procedures go into effect when primary screening devices are not working (page 52).
  
  
• Matrix of special screening procedures for law enforcement officers ( pages 54-55).
  
  
• Photos and graphics of with sample credentials for Federal Air Marshals, ATF employees, CIA employees, and members of the US Congress (pages 57-60).
  
  
• Procedures to use if explosives trace detection devices or x-ray devices are are unavailable or have limited function (page 77).
  
  
• Explosives trace detection exemptions for persons with disabilities (page 78).
  
  
• Allowing explosives trace detection procedures for bags and containers while using physical searches for all other items (page 78).
  
  
• Unless exempted by the airline or the TSA security director, passengers with passports issued by the following countries are to be selected for extra screening: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and Algeria (page 81).
  
  
• Characteristics of suspect identification (page 82).
  
  
• Alternative methods for checking travel documents (page 83).

Lessons Learned
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned here is that electronic documents are not like printed documents. Depending on the document, what you see is not necessarily what you get. The version that you see may have coded within the document data about previous edits, formatting information, and hidden characters. There may also be several layers of information, such as the case with the TSA document where the blacked out portion did not eliminate the sensitive information, but merely covered it up.

A more effective method for redacting a document would have been to delete the sensitive information from the original document before turning it into a PDF file. Perhaps this TSA security controversy will be a lesson to anyone who works with electronic documents that they should be careful when 'redacting' documents.

Resources
Full TSA Report
Redacted TSA Report
TSA Prohibited and Restricted Items

Follow Up Articles
How the TSA Could Have Easily Avoided Its Recent Security Problem
Continued Fallout from TSA Release of Sensitive Security Information

Survey and Comments
Given the security implications of this TSA release of information, AirSafeNews.com would be particularly interested in any comments that you may have. Please take the time to fill out the survey below:

The survey is now closed. The results of the survey are available here.