Talk:Transportation Security Administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Mental defectives" 2 Line of Invasion of Privacy 3 What about including some of the critisicm? 4 It All Boils Down To: 5 How many employees does the TSA have? 6 Bias? 7 Bias? Agreed 8 Vandalism 9 Reporting suspicous activity and complaints 10 Chain of Command Section

[edit] "Mental defectives"

Is the news story about the TSA wanting to exclude military veterans discharged for mental reasons worth including here? nae'blis _(talk) 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line of Invasion of Privacy

"Many citizens don't trust TSA to implement this program without crossing the line of invasion of privacy for regular law-abiding citizens."

The above could be worded better... 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

129.215.13.83 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) TSA are just power-trippng ex-con nazis who should be beaten.

I'm not sure that really qualifies as "worded better"... 86.136.248.146 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about including some of the critisicm?

for instance, see evidence here. I'm not an American, so I don't know much about this agency, but as someone who's used to going to Wikipedia in order to find out both the good and the bad about an American agency, I'm certainly missing the 'bad' part here. Volland 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. This article reads as though it was written by the TSA itself. I've added a criticism section to help balance out the article. -- TexasDawg 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It All Boils Down To:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking --Manlovergal 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? -- TexasDawg 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Look at the list of hijackings, how many, and how frequently, have (they) been listed in the 5+ years since TSA began screening at USA airports compared to prior to?

*Please sign your post. Thanks! 38.100.34.2 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*Do you have a point? TexasDawg 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many employees does the TSA have?

This would be a good fact to have for the article. -- TexasDawg 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Does a website whose address is antiwar.com strike one as being a biased source?..

• The article is from Ron Paul, a U.S. Congressman. You can find it at numerous other sources if you are troubled by this particular domain name. TexasDawg 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is also flawed - background checks are performed on all employees, baggage can be locked, those subject to additional screening (pat downs, etc) are offered private screening. So even if the article is not intended to be biased, it is quite misinformed. People who are rude are not put on some list... that's done by a seperate system that the average screener at an airport has no access to - indeed, how can your name go on a list when at no point during your flight do you ever have to provide identification? As for revealing protocol, no it doesn't make sense to state exactly what our operating procedure is, and perhaps this representative and the female representative shocked at being treated like a common citizen should have read the fine print of the bill they passed. So no, I don't think this source should be mentioned in this article because it is... well, it's an opinion piece and an extremely flawed one at that -n5667

• None of this refutes the criticisms or the significance of the criticisms listed in the article. TexasDawg 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-Why not? You're relying on the Senator to tell us what is fact, since I happen to work for the TSA I am actually aware of how things work. Statements he makes such as... "If they don't submit quickly and attempt to assert any rights, they will end up detained, put on a TSA list that guarantees them hostile treatment at every airport, and possibly arrested or fined for their "attitude."" This statement is absolutely false - It doesn't happen! After all, how can your name be put on a list when at no point during your domestic travels do you have to furnish identification to the TSA. The article is simply an opinion piece, there are actual events that occured that could be referenced, but I don't see how Wikipedia will be helped by inserting an opinion section into every article. -n5667

• Fair enough. I will remove it as a source for this particular criticism. Also, when signing your responses in the future typing four consecutive ~'s at the end of your response will automatically insert your user name and time stamp once your post is submitted. -- TexasDawg 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias? Agreed

I also see this article as flawed and biased. This is not an Opinions page. I would agree to the Criticism section, but the rest should be just like an encyclopedia entry. All other opinions or views should be saved for the Criticism section. In addition, how many business, government or private, have thefts? Many or most. And I for one feel safer to fly when I know the airline’s employees aren’t checking me in and then making sure I don’t have any bombs or guns. And that’s one less thing for the airlines to have to spend money on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonsupport8J (talk • contribs) 15:46, September 19, 2006.

• I really don't see a whole lot of opinion outside the critism section in the article's current state. As for theft, most business theft is of company property. In the TSA's case, it is their clients, the general public, whose items are lost. People aren't complaining about the loss of screening wands, but their personal property. As for airline screeners, it wasn't airline employees, but private security contractors paid for in part by airlines (which I would agree might not be as safe as government sponsored screening). --skew-t 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• None of this refutes the criticisms or the significance of the criticisms listed in the article. TexasDawg 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose moving the word "controversial" out of the introductory sentence "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a controversial U.S. government agency that was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001." The controversy is evident from the "criticisms" section, as well as this talk page, and need not be inserted in the introductory sentence. In the alternative, move the word "controversial" out of the first sentence, and add reference to the controversies to the end of the first paragraph, like this: "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a U.S. government agency that was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA was originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation but was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 01, 2003. The agency has been the subject of a number of controversies." 38.100.34.2 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done -- TexasDawg 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

My edit was NOT vandalism; "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is indeed a criticism leveled at the TSA (its head honcho in particular) not a statement of fact. I just didn't have a good source yet. dreddnott 00:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting suspicous activity and complaints

It would be very helpful if this page contained phone numbers and email addresses in order for citizens to report suspicious activity and complaints.

Several of my packed items were taken from my checked luggage on Dec 25, 2006 between 9:15 AM and 10:30 AM at the San Diego airport.

They were items of little value (except of a sentimental nature) and not worth stealing, so I think they were simply discarded because my suitcase was quite full and it would have been too hard to get them back in my suitcase.

Hope this was caught on camera like the guy who was stealing jewelry!

I Googled and found a phone number for San Diego airport 'Transportation Security Administration,' but I found when I called that it was also 'Lost and Found' number and though the tape said someone would be there at the time and date I called, no one answered. I clicked 'Contact Us' from the airport's page and found the number I called, 619-400-2140 was the generic number for the airport, not just for the Transportation Security Administration at San Diego airport! In other words, the number listed is not just for TSA, and it is not manned 24/7. Either give an extension option to this number, and have an 800 number that can contact TSA specifically at SAN.

Is this anyway to run a business? No phone contact, no email address. Why does all of this make me feel less secure?

It would also be great if there were a phone number I could call when I spot some of that 'suspicious activity' that the announcer is always harping about repeatedly in airports. Why not include the phone number with the announcements? -- 128.172.28.41 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• TSA is not a business, it's a government agency, therefore you'll be dealing with a beauracracy... Sorry. Anywho, you can ask for a claim form at the airport, and also a comment card from any TSA employee... However, the TSA is not really structured in such a manner that you can contact the local office, there is instead the website!

  http://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/default.aspx

  You may utilize the pull down menu. -- 71.117.75.90 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I sympathize with your frustration, but I'm not sure this Wikipedia page should include contact info for the TSA. -- TexasDawg 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chain of Command Section

The chain of command section cites no sources. It needs sources, or else it should be removed. -- TexasDawg 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)