Friday, July 19, 2013

False Report: TSA Airport Car Searches



CarsIt has been reported that TSA Officers at airports are now searching cars. The news started to spread after a story ran  this week stating that a woman found a notice informing her that her car had been searched by TSA. 

The short version: While we deploy numerous layers of security, TSA officers are not inspecting cars or mandating that they be searched.

In this case, it turns out the car was searched by an employee of a car parking service. 

Each airport authority, along with its state and local law enforcement partners, is responsible for securing airport property, including the outer perimeter.  At this particular airport, car searches are part of their “airport security plan.”

An airport security plan addresses a myriad of security requirements that each airport must adhere to in order to protect the traveling public, which includes the physical security of the airport property. While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented. 

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team 

If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

106 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob,

We all know the TSA wasn't searching cars. According to the following article, they were searched by order of the TSA.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3101080.shtml?cat=566

Here is a part of that article:

"Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA. But why only valet parked cars? That's what News10NBC wanted to ask the TSA director about. We reached him by phone.

Berkeley Brean asked, “Are the cars in the short term lots and long term lots getting searched as well?”

John McCaffery, TSA, said, “No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability.”

News10NBC went to the valet parking and one of the attendants showed us the notice they put in the cars.

We asked, “You're required, they tell you, you have to search the car?” Valet Parking Attendant Frank Dettorre said, “I have to do it.”"

Why is the TSA giving orders to search cars? If it is so important for safety, why isn't the TSA doing it themselves, rather than relying on valets who can't possibly have the same training the TSA screeners have?

This entire story stinks and I will be contacting my congressman and senators to let them know my disgust.

screenshot

Anonymous said...

The contractor wasn't acting as your agent then?

Anonymous said...

Myth busters? Really?

Are you saying that this article is wrong?

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3101080.shtml?cat=566

«John McCaffery, TSA, said, “No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability.”»

It seems pretty clear that the valets were conducting the searches at the behest of the airport TSA director.

So, Mr. Burns, where does the TSA's authority to perform or order searches? How many yards from the terminal?

And what kind of training did these valet workers receive to look for bombs? Surely if the TSA has to approve any airport plan, it behooves the TSA to ensure that the employees conducting searches have been adequately trained. Right?

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight: The airport has a security plan approved by the TSA which includes potential search of vehicles by the parking authority. A plan for this particular airport that includes potential car searches, tells me that "someone" has indicated to the airport authority that car searches should be included in the plan. Since the TSA approved the plan, they, the TSA, are happy with the airport searching cars. If the TSA did not indicate to the airport that they should search cars, the airport would not do it. The airport authority has limited funds and would not be doing anything not required or suggested by the TSA. See the logic?

Anonymous said...

While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA,

Why would the TSA approve of these searches?

Anonymous said...

Because the TSA has lost credibility with millions of Americans, the TSA now feels the need to respond to even the slightest rumor...that's just sad and pathetic.

Anonymous said...

I'd post a comment but you didn't put up the first one so why waste my time.

Anonymous said...

The report says: "We all agree that security at the airport is very important. When News10NBC interviewed the local director of the TSA Wednesday, he said this was a proactive approach."

So the local director of the TSA is lying?

Anonymous said...

Bob, you're calling your fellow TSA employee, John McCaffery, a liar?

What about the notice the lady interviewed got?

What about, "TSA says this is part of its overall security plan and that it's a proactive move."?

Beyond the headlines, it is very clear that valets were instructed (under orders from TSA) to search the cars. No one thinks screeners are directly inspecting cars, but it's a lie to say it isn't mandated by TSA.

Why would the valet company require their valets to search the cars, put a notice in the car, and post a sign at the entrance kiosk, all clearly stating they are under orders of the TSA, if the company wasn't under such orders?

Why would a valet company put themselves at such liability for being blamed for stolen or damaged items through these TSA ordered searches if they weren't required to do so? (Answer: They wouldn't.)

It is good you are finally addressing one of the hundreds of serious complaints about the TSA, but to just give us the "short version" and call everyone, including your co-worker, a liar is terrible.

When is the long version coming out? When Pistole is hauled before Congress again?

Anonymous said...

So, this story was not false entirely as your blog title entales. There is truth to it. How does this keep shady TSA workers from nabbing car owners personal info? That is one step to far if the cars go through a checkpoint (like border patrol/military bases) there would not be any need of wasting time/effort searching cars in the parking lot. Think people, think! While that TSA worker is search cars others are coming in and out of the parking lot. Seems a waste of time & money when other methods are available that are more cost efficient without invading privacy or opening people up to identity theft or a home invasion because a TSA worker has gone one step to far.

Anonymous said...

Hey everyone, you know why Bob gave us the "short version." So this post will be buried under one or two super duper long "police blotter" posts, showing all of the things people allegedly bring to the airport. Funny how these items would've been found with WTMDs and weren't threats to aviation safety.

Are we taking bets on how many days til this post goes to page 2?

Susan Richart said...

Bob, can you be any more disingenuous?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

RB said...

We know one thing, this Report by TSA is certainly False. Either that or Bob is calling the FSD of that airport a liar.

Which is it Bob?

Anonymous said...

If the airport did not inspect the cars as part of its security plan, then as a regulated entity TSA could fine the airport up to $25K for each car they failed to inspect. If TSA does not believe these inspections are necessary then request the airport operating authority remove them from their airport security plan.

Anonymous said...

"Because the TSA has lost credibility with millions of Americans, the TSA now feels the need to respond to even the slightest rumor...that's just sad and pathetic."

TSA processes over 100 million passengers per year and factual complaints are very rare.

Keep up the great work TSA.

Anonymous said...

According to this link, John McCaffrey is the current Federal Security Directer of the Rochester and Elmira airports.
http://secondopinion-tv.org/panelist/john-mccaffrey

So, Bob, how can you possibly deny any TSA involvement in this outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment when the FSD at ROC is the one saying that it's a TSA program?

Is the FSD of two New York airports lying to the media? Is the FSD of two airports so uninformed about what's going on at his own airports that he's mistaken about TSA involvement in this search program? Or are you just spouting unsupportable denials without bothering to check on the specifics with the TSA people at ROC first?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the TSA wasn't searching the cars. TSA was just having other people do it for them. Somehow this makes it OK.

Anonymous said...

I've gone through airport security enough to know that the majority of travelers just want to get on the plane and take off. They don't care about the screening of their person or possessions. They don't care if the car is searched.

Here, in this blog, every complainer gets a chance to air their grievance equally. TSA itself provided a soapbox. What more could the complainer want? What a country!

Times have changed and "rights" granted by the government 200 years ago are interpreted accordingly.

Anonymous said...

My valet key won't allow access to the glove box, center console or the trunk.
How are they going to search my car?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Times have changed and 'rights' granted by the government 200 years ago are interpreted accordingly."

The Declaration of Independence says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution of the United States says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How more wrong could Anonymous be, by saying that these rights should be reinterpreted?

Anonymous said...

This is great. TSA perceives a threat.... and gets untrained car valets to investigate. Yup, that's confidence inspiring.

I hope TSA is also searching (or getting valets to search) all the delivery trucks and commercial vehicles that are at the airports for more than a few minutes. But then, that still doesn't address the real issues: if vehicles can carry bombs then why is TSA only concentrating on the ones that are parked for short periods? Have they not heard of suicide bombers? It silly.

There's so many gaping holes in the idea that King Kong could waddle through them. Bob, you also appear to be either misinformed or simply lying. Which is it?

Anonymous said...

"Because the TSA has lost credibility with millions of Americans, the TSA now feels the need to respond to even the slightest rumor...that's just sad and pathetic."

TSA processes over 100 million passengers per year and factual complaints are very rare.
***********
Try making a factual complaint against a TSO and having the TSA investigate. The only way to get an answer is to involve the local media. Otherwise the TSA ignores you.

Anonymous said...

Other than a few conspiracy theorists, nobody cares if TSA is searching cars?

Adrian said...

Bob, why haven't you posted a retraction yet for completely mischaracterizing the news story?

You wrote: "It’s has been reported that TSA Officers at airports are now searching cars. The news started to spread after a story ran this week stating that a woman found a notice informing her that her car had been searched by TSA."

This is false. I'd almost go so far as to call it a lie.

The news story clearly explained that the woman's car was searched by airport valets. They even got a comment from a TSA spokesperson. Nowhere is there a claim that the TSA is searching cars.

The only lie here from the TSA. You owe us a retraction, Bob.

Anonymous said...

"Because the TSA has lost credibility with millions of Americans, the TSA now feels the need to respond to even the slightest rumor...that's just sad and pathetic."

TSA processes over 100 million passengers per year and factual complaints are very rare.

*****************

Here's some facts to consider...

1. ABC News reported in October 2012 that multiple TSA employees have been fired for theft in at least 20 of the TOP US airports

2. The TSA discontinued use of "virtual strip machines" (backscatter) as of June 1, 2013 due to a mandate by Congress and because the vendor could not effectively implement privacy requirements. This discontinued technology virtually stripped searched millions of law-abiding Americans of all ages (No one really understands if there were health implications, at least yet)

3. Passengers who "opt out" of advanced imaging technology are still subject to intrusive searches that include feeling the inside of a passenger's thigh upwards to the groin area as well as feeling around the entire breast area (for female passengers); this interaction would be considered unacceptable for most law-abiding Americans outside the confines of an airport checkpoint.

I personally believe that "credible" individuals or groups can not reasonably justify their association with the aforementioned behaviors and practices.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Other than a few conspiracy theorists, nobody cares if TSA is searching cars?

Since the TSA has not publicized this blog, you can't judge either side by the number of comments. However, 4000+ negative comments on the Regulations.gov rulemaking proposal shows that you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be angry with TSA's abuse and illegal extension of powers it was given by our government when it was first established.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Based on this the note left behind says:

"inspected under TSA regulations"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353829/tsa-orders-valets-search-cars-rochester-airport-will-allen

Anonymous said...

In the following article, they have pictures of the notice that the woman whose car was searched and the notice on the valet booth window:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/18/did-you-know-tsa-allows-searches-on-valet-parked-cars-at-the-airport/

If you can't get to the article, here is the text of the notice that the lady found in her car:

"Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations"

Here is the text of the notice on the valet booth window:

"Notice to Valet Customers. TSA requires an inspection of your vehicle when parked in front of the terminal."

While the TSA isn't searching the vehicles, it looks like they are ordering the valets to do so. I can't see a private company performing such searches. It opens them up to liability if something gets stolen. I can't imagine valets would want to risk their lives searching for bombs. This just sounds like a convenient way to circumvent the Constitution and perform unlawful searches.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the memoranda and other documentation that show TSA leadership's thought process in proposing and moving forward with this valet search proposal. I would particularly like to see the cost-benefit analysis (which should include the costs of training valets to look for bombs as well as the expected reduction in risk) and the Privacy Impact Analysis.

RB said...

What training has TSA provided car parking valets in order to safely conduct searches for weapons, explosives, or other such devices that would be of a concern to TSA?

Why did TSA post the "False Report: TSA Airport Car Searches" article since it is mostly not true.

Doesn't TSA have some requirement that mandates employee honesty when speaking to the public?

Anonymous said...

Bob,
I support the searches so long as they are reasonable.
BDS

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Bob,
I support the searches so long as they are reasonable.
BDS

July 22, 2013 at 11:20 AM

............................................
Warrantless searches are never reasonable.

TSA has no mandate to search outside of the airport.

Anonymous said...

Don't we all want the same thing? Safety & Security. Why so much grousing about security. Travelers are potential terrorists. No one can deny that. The government security forces are the enemies of terrorists. Terrorists try to blend in with the peaceful citizens. Security apparatus must be able to reliably differentiate terrorists from citizens. They can't do this without tools of search and distraint.

So the traveler has to be considered the enemy of safety and security until reasonable proof shows otherwise. We should all get together on this.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Don't we all want the same thing? Safety & Security. Why so much grousing about security. Travelers are potential terrorists. No one can deny that. The government security forces are the enemies of terrorists. Terrorists try to blend in with the peaceful citizens. Security apparatus must be able to reliably differentiate terrorists from citizens. They can't do this without tools of search and distraint.

So the traveler has to be considered the enemy of safety and security until reasonable proof shows otherwise. We should all get together on this.

July 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM
..................

If TSA must be able to tell normal travelers from terrorist and there are 1.6 million travelers each day and not one terrorist identified by TSA is over 10 years then I submit that the terrorist threat is extremely low.

It's time to return screening to a more normal posture. End the LGA restrictions, stop making people disrobe at the checkpoint, use Pre Check screening as the base level screening for everyone only elevating when cause is shown.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Don't we all want the same thing? Safety & Security. Why so much grousing about security. Travelers are potential terrorists. No one can deny that. The government security forces are the enemies of terrorists. Terrorists try to blend in with the peaceful citizens. Security apparatus must be able to reliably differentiate terrorists from citizens. They can't do this without tools of search and distraint.

So the traveler has to be considered the enemy of safety and security until reasonable proof shows otherwise. We should all get together on this.

July 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM
-----------------------------

This is completely the opposite of one of the founding principles of the USA. If you were accused of a crime, would you want to have to prove your innocence rather than being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

The same principle should apply to air travel. All travelers should be treated as just travelers unless there is suspicion to think otherwise. I'm ok if they want to subject the occasional traveler to extra screening at random. To treat all travelers as guilty until proven innocent is wrong. Virtually 100% of travelers are innocent and should be treated that way. The TSA Pre screening program should be the default screening for all travelers.

Anonymous said...

"Why so much grousing about security. "

Because's TSA's approach to security is grotesquely invasive, based on hysteria and overreaction, and doesn't actually make anyone safer.

Anonymous said...

"...the traveler has to be considered the enemy of safety and security..."

Spot on. I worked in a prison and the inmates were always under suspicion. And correctly so. This suspicion saved many lives. It works at the airports, too.

Anonymous said...

"guilty until proven innocent is wrong..." Why?

Travel is not a court proceeding. You can have all the rights you want in court. People surrender to authority all the time. Tell the police officer you didn't want to stop when you were pulled over at a traffic stop because you did nothing wrong. It might get you tasered and jailed. Or worse.

People on this blog seem to think they have "rights" that don't exist and this "jailhouse law" serves only the enemies of our government. People that play into the hands of the enemies are collaborators. We should all stand together to defeat terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Are we going to get any official comment on why the information left in the vehicles states

""inspected under TSA regulations"

Is the above correct? If it is incorrect are the sheets being changed?

Or is the TSA just going to ignore the public?

GSOLTSO said...

Anon asks - "The contractor wasn't acting as your agent then?"

The answer is included in the original post Anon -

"The short version: While we deploy numerous layers of security, TSA officers are not inspecting cars or mandating that they be searched."

I hope that helped to clarify some.

Another Anon asks - "How does this keep shady TSA workers from nabbing car owners personal info?"

Again, the answer was included in the original post -

"The short version: While we deploy numerous layers of security, TSA officers are not inspecting cars or mandating that they be searched."

It is hard for a TSO to gain anything from someones car when they are not actually doing the searches, nor ordering the searches.

Adrian sez - "You wrote: "It’s has been reported that TSA Officers at airports are now searching cars. The news started to spread after a story ran this week stating that a woman found a notice informing her that her car had been searched by TSA."

This is false. I'd almost go so far as to call it a lie."

There have been several links, blog posts and commentaries posted indicating that TSA was actually doing the searches, some have indicated that TSA is ordering it. Some even lead with headlines/blog titles along the lines of "TSA now searching cars". All of those are misleading, this post was to provide some clarity, and to inform the public that TSA is in fact, not doing the searches, nor did they order them.

Again, I hope these answers can help clarify things a bit for our readers.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Keep going, Bob! We've almost forgotten about the inappropriate harassment of a 15-year-old girl by one of your agents!

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-agent-accused-harassing-15-year-old-girl-over-shirt-6C10353666

Anonymous said...

You give permission to a valet to enter your car. If the valet looks around for contraband at the behest of TSA or any other government agency while performing this task then there can be no cry of "foul".

Anonymous said...

"...I worked in a prison and the inmates were always under suspicion. And correctly so. This suspicion saved many lives. It works at the airports, too."

Are you equating prison with TSA security checkpoints? I grant you that there are similarities (e.g., intrusive patdowns and body inspections), but the risk profile of inmates is not at all the same risk profile as the average flyer. Rates of recidivism* indicate that someone with a criminal record is far more likely than the average traveler to commit a new crime. That is, there is an objective, statistical basis for scrutinizing criminals to a higher degree than you would the average traveler. The chances that a flyer is a terrorist is so minute (1 in 20 million!) that equating known criminals to flyers is absurd.

*Recidivism statistics are available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Example:

"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years."

Anonymous said...

"People on this blog seem to think they have 'rights' that don't exist."

I have a copy of the Bill of Rights. Are you not a U.S. citizen, too?

Anonymous said...

West, please respond to this image --

http://i.imgur.com/P7AX8Aq.png

I assume that the FSD at Rochester has thoroughly reprimanded the valet operators for falsely claiming that the TSA was ordering these searches?

And what incentive would the valet operator have to lie about this?

Thank you.

Garrett Collins said...

Well if I was in charge of a garage and saw a couple of Skylines like your picture suggests, I would poke around them too!

Anonymous said...

"Again, I hope these answers can help clarify things a bit for our readers."

-------------------------------
Why do the leaflets left in the car say

"inspected under TSA regulations"?

Anonymous said...

West,

I've read multiple articles about this and one of the comments posted above lists the text of the notice in the car and the valet booth:

"
"Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations"

Here is the text of the notice on the valet booth window:

"Notice to Valet Customers. TSA requires an inspection of your vehicle when parked in front of the terminal." "

Those statements make it seem like the TSA is ordering the searches. If that is not the case, will the TSA ask the valet company remove or reword these notices?

Anonymous said...

Where is my post of almost (4) hours ago? 3 or 4 posts have been accepted since then!

Anonymous said...

Well??? Huh??? We're waiting!

RB said...

Anonymous said...
"...the traveler has to be considered the enemy of safety and security..."

Spot on. I worked in a prison and the inmates were always under suspicion. And correctly so. This suspicion saved many lives. It works at the airports, too.

July 23, 2013 at 10:35 AM

...........................

Inmates in a prison have been convicted of a crime. People who use our airlines have not and should not be viewed or treated with that level of suspicion.

I'm afraid to many TSA employees share your views and that is one reason TSA is one of the most hated federal agency of all time. Is it any wonder that TSA employees are treated with utter contempt?

Anonymous said...

"End the LGA restrictions, stop making people disrobe at the checkpoint, use Pre Check screening as the base level screening for everyone only elevating when cause is shown."

If this happened, what would you then complain about?

Anonymous said...

If TSA really had anything to hide, why would they provide the forum for complainers?

Anonymous said...

West, the fact that you're quoting the same line over and over again sidesteps the issue. It's an evasion tactic. You're not providing a direct answer to the questions that are being asked.

If the TSA has a policy by which cars parked near the terminal are to be searched, then the TSA is still involved. Your attempts to weasel your way out of the accusation by using the "TSA officers are not inspecting cars" language makes your agency appear disingenuous, at best.

Susan Richart said...

"nor did they order them."

Then who did order the searches, West? The valet company, airport management?

If you can't or won't tell us how these searches came about, then why should anyone believe you or Bob?

screen shot

Anonymous said...

I considered commenting about the comments comparing innocent people who want/need to travel with terrorists and convicted prisoners, but decided to use some "distraint."

LOL.

Oh, and West? I'm a little disappointed. You tried to distract us from the original story and follow-up on WHEC's website with vague mentions of blogs and other websites.

The BlogTeam still hasn't addressed their incorrect claims about this case, nor have any of you addressed why you are calling a fellow TSA employee, John McCaffery, a liar.

Anonymous said...

West said...
TSA is in fact, not doing the searches, nor did they order them.

Then how do you explain the text of the notice that the lady found in her car:

"Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations"?

Are you stating that the valet service is LYING about performing the searches "under TSA regulations"?

Anonymous said...

To West from the Blog team:

Then who is this John McCaffery, whom the media is portraying as TSA director at the airport who is must be an impostor for the TSA director?

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...

"Spot on. I worked in a prison and the inmates were always under suspicion. And correctly so. This suspicion saved many lives. It works at the airports, too."

Except, in prison, everyone who doesn't work there is a convict. At an airport, the percentage of convicts is much, much lower. And some of those are TSAgents. So, tell me exactly, how is acting as a paranoid-schizophrenic helping security at all?

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of people don't care about searches on their person or property at the airport. They just want to get to their destination. When you go to an airport just look around. You won't see harassment, protests, thievery. Just people trying to get away.

All this complaining takes away from the TSA's purpose: To make travel safe and efficient.

GSOLTSO said...

Garrett Collins sez - "Well if I was in charge of a garage and saw a couple of Skylines like your picture suggests, I would poke around them too!"

Skylines are sweet tuner cars, and deserve a second look anytime they are around - however, we are not searching cars, so we will have to find the opportunity to look at them off duty or simply in passing!

Anon sez - "West, please respond to this image" ~snip~

I have no further information on the flyer, or where it came from - if I do get more info on it, I will post it here.

Anon sez - "West, the fact that you're quoting the same line over and over again sidesteps the issue"

It does not evade or sidestep at all, it merely contradicts the articles and posts out there that are indicating that TSA is ordering or performing these searches.

Susan sez - "Then who did order the searches, West? The valet company, airport management?"

I do not know where the order to do these searches comes from. The only information about these searches that I have, is that the searches are a part of this airports security plan, which is compiled and implemented by the airport itself.

The information on security plans was also included in the original post here:

"Each airport authority, along with its state and local law enforcement partners, is responsible for securing airport property, including the outer perimeter. At this particular airport, car searches are part of their “airport security plan.”

An airport security plan addresses a myriad of security requirements that each airport must adhere to in order to protect the traveling public, which includes the physical security of the airport property. While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented."

West
TSA Blog Team

RB said...

Anonymous said...
You give permission to a valet to enter your car. If the valet looks around for contraband at the behest of TSA or any other government agency while performing this task then there can be no cry of "foul".

July 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM
...................
NO, the permission given is to drive the vehicle to a parking spot and then back to the delivery point. No other permission is given, especially for the person to snoop around, open hoods or trunks and search through the vehicle.

On top of that exactly what skills and training qualify a valet to search for WEI?

If TSA has any role in this kind of thing happening then TSA has step over their mandate.

Anonymous said...

I have no further information on the flyer, or where it came from - if I do get more info on it, I will post it here.

Who have you asked?

Don't worry, it's only your reputation on the line...

Anonymous said...

The WHEC articles indicate that John McCaffery, a TSA employee, wanted the searches. The notice in the car and the sign at the valet booth said that the TSA requires the searches. It sure seems like the TSA ordered the searches.

If the TSA didn't order the searches, they should tell the valet company to take TSA out of their notices and signs.

Susan Richart said...

West, if you can't say who did order that all valet-parked cars be searched, then you also can't say that the TSA didn't order it.

And speaking of perimeters, here's a quote from a Congressional hearing:

"That perimeter security is
primarily the responsibility of airport operators, while TSA's
role is to ensure that the operator is adhering to an appropriate security plan that meets Federal standards."


IOW, the TSA has the final say on whether a plan is a go or no-go.

screen shot

Anonymous said...

Governments use civilians for security purposes all the time. Sometimes they patrol government installations, sometimes they serve as informants, sometimes they maintain technology applications. That TSA would rely on non-government personnel seems appropriate.

Anonymous said...

"I have no further information on the flyer, or where it came from - if I do get more info on it, I will post it here."
------------------------------------

This is why people can't trust the TSA.

We get the "short version" and when legitimate questions are brought up, no answers are forthcoming.


Anonymous said...

I was the one who posted about a post of mine not being accepted and listed here! Funny - the position of you privacy rights and the possibility of identity theft were brought up early in the chain, yet my post only contained an E-mail from the Federal Government website waning folks about identity theft and how to prevent it and was consequently not accepted - HUH!!!

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the whole premise but understand why the "only valet" cars implementation. Burried deep in inference, is the logistical fact the the front drive is where drop-offs and pick-ups occur. The problem for them is that a car may be left at that location for 30-60 minutes before being parked. That's why, in the video, you hear " front of the airport" when he refers to the amount of damage being inflicted by a vehicle "even with a large amount of explosive" being located in the economy lot. There might have also been a localized / generalized threat that was discovered that was to come from a curb side source. They are not total idiots, but some of the stuff they do do sures makes you wonder....

Adrian said...

Bob wrote: "There have been several links, blog posts and commentaries posted indicating that TSA was actually doing the searches, some have indicated that TSA is ordering it. Some even lead with headlines/blog titles along the lines of "TSA now searching cars"."

Then you should cite (at least) one of these incorrect reports that you are refuting. To broadly claim that the reports about car searches at airports are false, and to cite only the a news article that gets it 100% right, creates the misleading impression that there is no merit to the story at all.

You should apologize to WHEC for implying that their story is incorrect, and you should clarify the post by citing one or more articles that got it wrong.

GSOLTSO said...

Adrian wrote - "Bob wrote"

Actually the passage you are quoting was written by me, not Bob. I pulled up a quick search (circa the time frame this is being posted) and the following are a list of sites with misleading or incorrect headlines:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130718/15314723857/tsa-now-searching-valet-parked-vehicles-utilizing-crack-security-team-composed-valets.shtml

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/tsa-now-searching-cars-in-airport-parking/

http://intellihub.com/2013/07/20/tsa-now-conducting-vehicle-searches-without-consent/

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/07/19/TSA-now-search-inside-cars-parked-at-airports

Those are fairly well trafficked sites, and all were on the first page of a google search, and as for WHEC, the link for their original article pops into google under the following listing:

"TSA searches valet parked car | www.WHEC.com
www.whec.com/news/stories/S3101080.shtml?cat=566‎

7 days ago - Rochester, N.Y. -- She says she had no warning that someone was going to search her car after she left to catch her flight. So the woman ..."

That is a direct cut and paste from their link at Google. While the article points out (and the internal post title is different at this point), the specifics you and others have mentioned, if you just read the headline on google, it is misleading. The information from this thread indicates that TSA is not conducting the searches, and is/has not ordered them.

Hopefully, this has provided the information that you were seeking links to.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

West,

We all know the TSA wasn't personally searching cars. It sure seems like the TSA required the searches though.

The headlines may be misleading. If the TSA has nothing to do with these searches, then someone from the TSA needs to tell the valet company to stop saying the TSA is requiring these searches.

Did TSA employee John McCaffery order these searches? The articles from WHEC say that he ordered them.

Anonymous said...

"I'm afraid to many TSA employees share your views and that is one reason TSA is one of the most hated federal agency of all time"

Wrong. Only a few complainers here out of 100 million passengers.

Anonymous said...

"If you can't or won't tell us how these searches came about, then why should anyone believe you or Bob?"

Who cares! Children are starving and people murdered every day in America........and RB and Ms. Richart worry about TSA

RB said...

Hopefully, this has provided the information that you were seeking links to.

West
TSA Blog Team

July 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM
.....................
So by whose order are the searches being done under?

Why is TSA listed on both signage and the notice left in the vehicle?

Has TSA requested that its name be removed from the sign and notices?

Anonymous said...

The short version: TSA approved a plan that included searches of valet-parked cars.

Yes or no?

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
"Governments use civilians for security purposes all the time. Sometimes they patrol government installations, sometimes they serve as informants, sometimes they maintain technology applications. That TSA would rely on non-government personnel seems appropriate."

And that non-government personnel is acting as an agent of the government while performing those duties. That they'd use them was never the question, other than what makes a parking valet qualified to perform the search?

Anonymous said...

GSOLTSO, your comment only further confuses matters.

Is the TSA or is the TSA NOT conducting searches of vehicles outside of their legal mandate?

The very article you mentioned says:

"TSA says this is part of its overall security plan and that it's a proactive move"

So is the denial of searching cars a lie or not?

If you're not mandating car searches, shouldn't the owner of the valet company be arrested for illegally searching cars under the color of law?

And don't you even *read* the article fully before responding?

RB said...

Bob, when TSA approves and airports security plan that has provisions that violate the civil rights of citizens doesn't that make TSA just as responsible for those violations as the airport authority?

TSA cannot approve a document that has illegal provisions in it.

GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "We all know the TSA wasn't personally searching cars. It sure seems like the TSA required the searches though."

Sadly, a lot of people do not actually understand that due to the same reasons outlined above. If one were to simply read the headlines, more of them (that I have seen anyway) give the impression that TSA is physically doing the searches.

RB sez - "So by whose order are the searches being done under?"

I still do not have that information (however, according to this post and all my other sources that I rely on, it did not come from TSA), again, if I find any more info on how this came about, I will post it here.

Another anon sez - "Is the TSA or is the TSA NOT conducting searches of vehicles outside of their legal mandate?"

No, TSA is not conducting nor ordering the searches of the vehicles.

Anon also sez - "And don't you even *read* the article fully before responding?"

But of course I read it, which is why I made the point to copy and paste the actual headline that popped on Google, as well as relate that there are clarifications in the article itself that contradict their own headline.

The statements included in the original post here give you the information on whether TSA did the searches or ordered them - No to both.

So, brief recap - TSA did not do the searches, TSA did not order the searches.

Another Anon sez - "The short version: TSA approved a plan that included searches of valet-parked cars.

Yes or no?"

TSA approved the security plan submitted by this airport, yes.

West
TSA Blog Team


Susan Richart said...

"Who cares! Children are starving and people murdered every day in America........and RB and Ms. Richart worry about TSA."

If the TSA were eliminated and we went back to pre-9/11 screening, there would be funds to address hunger in America as well as a crumbling infrastructure. TSA is a 7.65 billion dollar boondoggle.

Elimination of the TSA won't stop the murders.

Susan Richart said...

As usual West is being disingenuous yet again. This from Mother Jones:

"As David Castelveter, a spokesman for TSA explains, each airport in the United States is required to come up with a TSA-approved plan to deal with security risks. That includes "unattended vehicles parked curbside at the terminal."

This says that the TSA told the valet service to come up with a plan to address any security risk that might be posed by valet-parked cars.

The valet service came up with a plan to search all cars.

The TSA approved the plan. The TSA is ultimately responsible.

Another quote from Mother Jones:

"An attendant for the valet at San Francisco International Airport said "yes, we can search" before changing his mind and adding "we just check the outside of the car. We just take down license plates. I'm not allowed to give you an answer."

Anonymous said...

By censoring my comment, you have validated what I said.

Why does the TSA fear the truth?

Anonymous said...

GSOLTSO said...
If one were to simply read the headlines, more of them (that I have seen anyway) give the impression that TSA is physically doing the searches.

If it is done on their orders (or 'request', or by their permission), then they are responsible.

TSA approved the security plan submitted by this airport, yes.

So, the TSA APPROVES of valets searching cars. Are there any penalties for valets who do NOT search cars?

Anonymous said...

"I'd post a comment but you didn't put up the first one so why waste my time."...

I have posted three (3) comments that didn't make the cut - I guess refering to other official Government E-mails sent to me are too controversial...Go figure - no room for facts here!

Anonymous said...

"If the TSA were eliminated and we went back to pre-9/11 screening, there would be funds to address hunger in America as well as a crumbling infrastructure."

Wrong! You'd risk another trillion dollar terrorist attack.

Sandra said...

Anonymous said...
"If the TSA were eliminated and we went back to pre-9/11 screening, there would be funds to address hunger in America as well as a
crumbling infrastructure."

Wrong! You'd risk another trillion dollar terrorist attack.

~~

You're wrong. What would prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11 are the sealed cockpit doors, unwillingness to cooperate with terrorists and a willingness on the part of passengers to fight back.

RB said...

GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "We all know the TSA wasn't personally searching cars. It sure seems like the TSA required the searches though."

Sadly, a lot of people do not actually understand that due to the same reasons outlined above. If one were to simply read the headlines, more of them (that I have seen anyway) give the impression that TSA is physically doing the searches.

RB sez - "So by whose order are the searches being done under?"

I still do not have that information (however, according to this post and all my other sources that I rely on, it did not come from TSA), again, if I find any more info on how this came about, I will post it here.

Another anon sez - "Is the TSA or is the TSA NOT conducting searches of vehicles outside of their legal mandate?"

No, TSA is not conducting nor ordering the searches of the vehicles.

Anon also sez - "And don't you even *read* the article fully before responding?"

But of course I read it, which is why I made the point to copy and paste the actual headline that popped on Google, as well as relate that there are clarifications in the article itself that contradict their own headline.

The statements included in the original post here give you the information on whether TSA did the searches or ordered them - No to both.

So, brief recap - TSA did not do the searches, TSA did not order the searches.

Another Anon sez - "The short version: TSA approved a plan that included searches of valet-parked cars.

Yes or no?"

TSA approved the security plan submitted by this airport, yes.

West
TSA Blog Team


..........................
If TSA approves an Airports Security Plan does that not suggest TSA agrees with the provisions of that plan?

If potentially illegal acts are listed in the TSA Approved plan that TSA understands this knowing TSA has the available staffing to understand the legal implications of any document and that these acts with potential legal issues that should be stuck prior to TSA signing off on the document?

No matter how you cut the cake TSA has ownership in the illegal car searches.

Anonymous said...

"No matter how you cut the cake TSA has ownership in the illegal car searches."

There is nothing illegal about the car searches.

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing illegal about the car searches."

Please provide proof to support that statement.

Anonymous said...

"Wrong! You'd risk another trillion dollar terrorist attack."

We would save hundreds of thousands of people if we invested more in, say, road safety projects and medical research instead of TSA. Many, many, many more people die on the highway than in terror attacks. Many, many, many more people die from heart disease than from terror attacks.

Anonymous said...

More people die every year in the US from food borne illnesses than died on 9/11. Since everyone has to eat (No "Don't like it, don't eat" ridiculousness), let's spend the money we're wasting on the TSA to make our food safer.

TSORon said...

RB said
“If TSA approves an Airports Security Plan does that not suggest TSA agrees with the provisions of that plan?’

Sorry RB, but you are wrong. TSA regulations dictate the minimum requirements that an airport authority must meet to have their Airport Security Plan approved by the TSA. If the airport authority chooses to go beyond those minimums that is their decision, not the TSA’s. Implying that TSA’s approval of an ASP is a tacit approval of all portions of the plan is incorrect.

Pudintane said...

Did you read Bob's post, TSORon?

"An airport security plan addresses a myriad of security requirements that each airport must adhere to in order to protect the traveling public, which includes the physical security of the airport property. While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented."

You might want to read 49 CFR 1542 and then come back and tell us that the airport operator has the authority to go beyond the TSA approved security measures.

I've taken a screen shot

Wintermute said...

TSORon said...

"Implying that TSA’s approval of an ASP is a tacit approval of all portions of the plan is incorrect."

Sorry, TSORon, but the TSA either approves the plan, or it does not. I believe it has already been stated that the TSA does, indeed, approve the plan. So, who's wrong again?

BTW, Blog Team, thanks for violating my 1st amendment rights by not posting several of my recent comments which fall within comment guidelines. My Congress Critters are aware of your actions.

Anonymous said...

It appears that most of you are stuck in the 60's. Yup, black and white.

If I read the first couple of posts I see that both sides appear to be correct, but the conspiracy mongers only see what they want.

The airport security plan is written by the airport, blessed by the TSA, and the airport is then required by the TSA to implement it.

The airport put valet searches in the plan, the TSA approved the plan, the airport is now required by the TSA to implement that plan. So you see it is very easy for an airport employee under a spotlight to say that it is a TSA requirement, and that is even true. However, the genesis of the policy is the airport authority itself. This is generally called spin folks.

TSORon said...

Pudintane said...
[[Did you read Bob's post, TSORon?]]

Why yes I did there Pudintane, did you? BB was absolutely correct. Unfortunately you are missing a few points I believe. Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not read anything into it that is not there. While you are at it, try reading 49 CFR 1542 without reading into it that which is not there.

Individual airports DO have the authority to go beyond the minimums set by the TSA, after all it’s their airport. They do so because of local laws mostly, but in many cases it’s because they see other areas where they can do more. Areas where TSA has no authority or has chosen to let the airport operators decide what works better for their airport, as long as they meet the minimums of 49 CFR 1542. An ASP is a collaborative effort between the Airport operators and the TSA.

TSORon said...

Wintermute said...
[[Sorry, TSORon, but the TSA either approves the plan, or it does not. I believe it has already been stated that the TSA does, indeed, approve the plan. So, who's wrong again?]]

You, naturally. Approval of an ASP means that the ASP meets the minimum standards set by the TSA. Any efforts above and beyond that are at the choice of the airport operators, not the TSA. It’s not a difficult concept after all. In fact, it’s a pretty common way of doing government all around the world.

RB said...

TSORon said...RB said“If TSA approves an Airports Security Plan does that not suggest TSA agrees with the provisions of that plan?’Sorry RB, but you are wrong. TSA regulations dictate the minimum requirements that an airport authority must meet to have their Airport Security Plan approved by the TSA. If the airport authority chooses to go beyond those minimums that is their decision, not the TSA’s. Implying that TSA’s approval of an ASP is a tacit approval of all portions of the plan is incorrect.August 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM
?...............................

Let me see if I get this.

TSA approves an Airports security plan but doesn't really mean it.

Fits TSA to a T.

Wintermute said...

TSORon said a bunch of nonsense...

Who approved the plan again? TSA??? Yeah. Thought so.

samhein said...

However, someone who commits a murder in front of a crowd of people is innocent until proven guilty while my just stepping into an airport makes me guilty until proven innocent.

How is this right? And why are you comparing an airport full of innocent people to a prison full of criminals?

J. Tarizo said...

I find the need to educate some of you. Many of the comments made mention of TSA not discovering any terrorists since it's implementation after 9/11. The goal of airport security is DETERENCE. That is the reason there has not been a major aviation incident since 9/11. Security does work because the terrorist will go after a "softer" target, for example the Boston Marathon bombing. Obviously, many of the complainers clearly do not understand security policy. Many of us travelers want to be safe.

Wintermute said...

J. Tarizo said...
"I find the need to educate some of you."

You may need some education youself...

"Many of the comments made mention of TSA not discovering any terrorists since it's implementation after 9/11. The goal of airport security is DETERENCE. That is the reason there has not been a major aviation incident since 9/11. "

And this rock is why there has been no tiger incidents in mid-Ohio since the Zanesville fiasco a few years back. (Correlation does not imply causation.)

"Security does work because the terrorist will go after a "softer" target, for example the Boston Marathon bombing."

I was unaware that the first choice of targets was an airport. Citation, please.

"Obviously, many of the complainers clearly do not understand security policy."

I'll match my understanding of security against anyone on this blog, TSAnonymous or official blog team member.

"Many of us travelers want to be safe."

Then you'd want something other than the show the TSA provides, because one thing it doesn't do is make you safe.

Anonymous said...

This *is* story that is true, TSA is searching your vehicle while using the valet as a third party agent. Remember, regulations are *not* law or are never enacted as law therefore, citizens are not bound to bind by it.

Bob, if I was president, I would make sure the TSA would be disbanded the first day I took office.

Anonymous said...

The 4th Amendment has left the building. The TSA has no authority to be searching your car. The car valet people have no authority to search your car. She should sue.

Max Armstrong said...

TSA has nothing to do with airport parking in Chicago?