The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has given consumers a new way to communicate with the agency about airport and airline problems — in vintage Web 1.0 fashion.

The TSA has unveiled TalktoTSA as a means to communicate with the customer service person at the airport you are complaining — or raving — about.

TSA Administrator John Pistole, who took office July 1, says on the TSA website: “After leaving your feedback, it will be sent directly to the person in charge of TSA customer service at the airport for which you are commenting. If you ask for a response, you will receive one.”

The idea is a good one by the TSA.

Of course, there is no word, however, on how timely the responses will be .

The hitch in the TSA’s new customer service move, however, is that consumers can provide their feedback to the TSA through an old-fashioned form that looks like this:

You click on a map and that populates a field that indicates the state the airport is located in.

That’s a nice little feature.

But, with all the modern Web communications tools that are available today, is providing consumers with a wooden form the best the TSA can come up with?

How about some live chat with a TSA customer service staffer?

Or even communicating via email would be more lively than filling out a clunky form.

Of course, passengers can provide their email addresses if they want a response, the TSA says.

The idea is a good one — let’s see how well the TSA executes on this promise of better communications with travelers.

The U.S. airport experience is being transformed as many travelers will be scanned and swabbed on their way to their dream vacation or business trip.

In twin announcements, the TSA says it began this month rolling out 150 backscatter-imaging technology units — i.e. naked scanners with X-rays — to airports across the country, and 300 more are on the way this year.

In addition, the TSA announced today that it is expanding its use of Explosive Trace Detection technology at U.S. airports in security lines, at the security checkpoint and in boarding areas.

The body scanners already are in use at around 20 airports across the country, and about a dozen more — including airports in Boston, Charlotte, Cincinatti, Fort Lauderdale, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Columbus and San Diego — will be getting them soon.

Here’s the deployment scenario for the body scanners:

The TSA says the scanners are safe. They use backscatter and millimeter wave technology.

“Backscatter technology projects low level X-ray beams over the body to create a reflection of the body displayed on the monitor,” the TSA says.

And millimeter wave technology bounces electromagnetic waves off the traveler’s body, creating a black-and-white, three-dimensional image which a TSA officer can view on a monitor to see if any weapons are present.

In addition to the scanners, the TSA is taking other steps to weed out explosives.

TSA officers would swab travelers’ hands or luggage to determine if traces of explosives are present.

Under the economic stimulus law, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, there was $15 million in funding for 400 fixed Electronic Trace Detection units, and the 2011 budget calls for 800 portable ETD units at a price tag $39 million.

After swabbing travelers’ hands or luggage — and this will be done randomly — TSA officers place the swab inside ETD units for analysis.

“Since it will be used on a random basis, passengers should not expect to see the same thing at every airport or each time they travel,” the TSA states.

Following the Christmas day attempted bombing on a Northwest flight, the TSA piloted the use of ETD technology at Raleigh Durham Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport, Orlando Airport, and at two regional airports in North Carolina.

With today’s announcement, the deployments will be expanded to additional airports.

Like the ETD units, the body scanners also were funded through economic-stimulus law monies.

While it’s unclear how much stimulation will be going on, it’s certain there will be lots more poking and perusing at the nation’s airports.

The TSA is upgrading its explosive trace-detection equipment at airport checkpoints by tapping into funding from last year’s federal jobs’ stimulus law.

The TSA’s Dept. of Homeland Security recently contracted with Morpho Detection for a few hundred of its Itemiser DX desktop units, which are designed to detect explosives in fixed locations at airport checkpoints.

The almost $16 million contract was partially funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Christmas Day Northwest Flight 253 incident, in which a passenger allegedly had explosive materials on his body as the jet was set to land in Detroit, highlighted the need for more optimum ways of screening passengers for explosives.

The DX desktop units, pictured below, are used with swabs, known as “traps,” to test for the presence of explosives, and are said to be the first trace detectors which can test for positive and negative ions simultaneously.

Morpho Detection spokesman Steve Hill says the TSA already uses an earlier product, the Itemiser 2, for secondary passenger screening.

The Itemiser DX is designed to upgrade those earlier products at airports around the U.S.

The stimulus law, which was designed to create jobs and nurture economic activity, comes with transparency requirements.

You can view details of the Morpho Detection award and project– including the longitude, latitude and Congressional district where the work is being done –  here.

Of note, the project summary details the number of jobs it created.

The amount? Zero.

Airport security technology firms, perhaps seeing the bounty ahead if – as expected – governments around the world impose stricter checks on passengers, are questioning the performance of the controversial full body scanners.

One such company is Guardian Technologies International which backs claims in the UK media this week that the widely talked about scanners do not accurately detect low-density substances such as liquid and powder explosives.

Unsurprisingly the company has a product of its own to peddle, the PinPoint threat detection and identification system, but equally it raises an interesting point if the much lauded body scanners are unable to pick up the very materials that the recent alleged Northwest 253 bomber had on his possession.

Guardian Technologies has illustrated the differences between its own system and that of existing scanners with a series of images released this week.

The company also claims that the body scanners are also open to the frailties of human operation and decision-making – in other words, a non-mechanical system for detection cannot be as reliable as one which uses software and digital imaging to detect suspicious objects.

Dear Airport Authority, TSA, and/or Agencies responsible for security,

As a member of the traveling public who, over the years, has adjusted my habits in order to streamline the airport security experience not only for myself but for fellow passengers, I want it to be known that I will be adjusting my habits again to take in account the use of full body scanners.

Not only will I be wearing pants that don’t require a belt and slip on shoes, and sorting all my personals into plastic baggies for easy screening, now I will be checking in my carry-on luggage which, for so many years, has been the only luggage I have had to bring on any trip up to a week in length.

I fully understand the need for security and I appreciate your desire to heighten measures at airports, especially in light of recent events.

I am however, concerned that the way in which your security measures have been implemented are purely reactive and not proactive.

Given the rush in which these scanners have been brought into service, I am concerned that there has not been enough testing done to ensure passenger health and privacy is protected.

I would, therefore, like to make it very clear that should naked images of me appear on the Internet that were derived from the use of the full body scan or if I should acquire any form of medical condition attributed to the twenty or more scans I will be undergoing this year, I may consider taking appropriate legal action and seeking compensation in all of the jurisdictions in which I underwent a scan.

Also note that any other individuals who have undergone similar humiliation or medical distress as a result of the rapid deployment of these scanners will also be invited to join any action launched in these jurisdictions.

This letter is by no means a threat, either intended or implied, but rather a simple acknowledgment that, as a traveler, it appears that I have no choice in whether or not I am screened in this way.

Since I have no choice, should you choose to proceed with screening me, I would expect that you and your agency would take full responsibility for any negative consequences that are related to your use of this technology.

I hope that you have taken the time to ensure that by the time I walk through that full body scan next month, that my genitals will be appropriately obscured and that my fragile DNA will be appropriately protected from mutation causing radiation.

All the best for safe and secure 2010.

Kind Regards,
Stephen Joyce

Former U.S. counter-terrorism official and frequent CNN guest Larry Johnson labels the new TSA security measures and the agency’s failure to impose a uniform security system as “criminal negligence.”

In a blog post, TSA Punts on Security, Johnson, co-founder of BERG Associates and former deputy director in the U.S. State Dept.’s Office of Counter Terrorism, says the TSA’s procedures, which went into effect Jan. 4,  “likely increase the chance that terrorists will succeed in putting a bomb onboard an in-bound commercial airliner.”

Johnson notes that Al Qaeda has recruited people from many countries beyond the TSA’s prime focus of flights that originate or stop in Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen [countries of interest] and Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria [U.S. designated state sponsors of terrorism].

After all, Johnson notes, the terrorists who commandeered planes on 9/11 departed from U.S. airports.

In a phone interview, Johnson told Tnooz that the new TSA procedures for flights in-bound into the U.S. revert to the “absurd notion” of “threat-based security,” which was in place prior to 9/11 when the FAA had responsibility for airline security and tried to “play Kreskin to figure out where the threat came from.”

As he wrote on his blog: “When you have a ’security’ based system you are making a huge bet that the intelligence community will be able to alert you when the threat changes. So if Al Qaeda decides to put an underwear bomb on a recruit from Georgia or Uzbekistan or Mali we probably will not find out about the ‘new’ threat until the bomb wearer sets his bollocks on fire or the bomb actually goes off.”

Johnson told me it would be easy for terrorists to come up with “work-arounds” to the  gaps in the TSA’s new procedures and instead the TSA should be establishing uniform security procedures, including the use of trace and bulk explosives detection technologies. [He notes he has no financial interest in any of these technologies.]

These explosives detection technologies should be combined with “profiling,” Johnson says, although not racial/ethnic profiling, which has limited utility and is also susceptible to work-arounds. Instead, the TSA should work up a profiling system based on studying things such as travel patterns, he adds.

As for the TSA’s increased use of pat-downs, Johnson notes that “pat-downs won’t tell you if someone’s hiding explosives in his underwear.”

Johnson says the introduction of whole-body imaging systems, the so-called naked scanners, would be “better than nothing,” but wouldn’t be an adequate substitute for a more comprehensive system that combines explosive detection technologies and profiling.

Some experts and pundits have called for adoption of security techniques — including the study of passenger behavior during ticket-counter questioning and database searches — employed by the Israelis. In fact, in this National Post story, Rafi Sela, a security consultant at Ben Gurion Airport, speculates that Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have never been able to board an aircraft in Israel because of the security techniques in play there.

However, Johnson downplays the usefulness to the U.S. of Israel’s methodologies, saying the Israelis “are legends in their own minds” because they have “maybe 32 planes” and a “very small target to protect.”

Johnson’s viewpoint is sobering, to say the least.

As he wrote in his blog:

“The failure of TSA to impose genuine, uniform security procedures and practices is criminal negligence. The new measures announced yesterday amount to nothing more than cosmetic gestures that will do little to keep air passengers safe. Enjoy your next trip.”

Meanwhile, the new TSA measures, which also call for the enhanced screening of a majority of in-bound travelers beyond those passengers who pass through countries under the microscope, picked up the support of the National Business Travel Association and the U.S. Travel Association.

The NBTA applauded the quick implementation of the new TSA measures, and was heartened that federal officials will be meeting with airport leaders to determine next steps.

And, the U.S. Travel Association called the new procedures “appropriate,” but called for a detailed review and analysis “of the most effective systems, techniques and technologies to secure the travel process.”

The U.S. Travel Association also called on the U.S. Congress to agree on the final passage of the Travel Promotion Act to show international travelers “our increase in security is matched with an increase in our welcome.”

Certainly, there is a wide range of viewpoints on these critical issues.

The TSA’s Christmas Day security directive, following the Northwest flight 253 terrorism incident, with its prohibitions against passengers roaming aircraft aisles or placing blankets in their laps during a flight’s approach, was a short-term response to an emergency situation and some of its elements were widely criticized.

But, starting Jan. 4, the TSA has dug in with “long-term, sustainable security measures,” which alter the flavor of the air-traveler experience for flights inbound to the U.S. for the forseeable future.

Some of the Christmas Day mandates about in-flight prohibitions, which drew such scorn, are dropped, but remain optional prohibitions at the discretion of the airlines and pilots.

Under the new rules for U.S. and international airlines in-bound to the U.S., the most rigorous focus is reserved for travelers who are flying from or through countries such as Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Namely countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism or “countries of interest.”

All of these travelers are slated to undergo “enhanced screening,” which means full body pat-downs, physical inspection of their property, and vetting by advanced explosive detection or advanced imaging technologies [such as whole-body imaging] in airports where they are available.

The stringent screening of these travelers who traverse so-called terrorist states or countries of interest applies only to current itineraries. In other words, if a traveler has Pakistan stamped in his or her passport from a 2006 trip, in theory there is no mandate that this traveler be subject to the most rigorous screening.

But, in contast to the period from Christmas until now, when all travelers on flights inbound to the U.S. were supposed to get pat-downs and have their property and carry-ons inspected, under the new rules only a majority of travelers — not all — will be subject to “enhanced screening” techniques.

However, for the majority of travelers, it appears that high-tech screening devices, when available, will be much more part of the norm.

In sum, it appears that risk-management is at the heart of the new TSA rules.

The most stringent focus is on travelers from countries that the U.S. views as the highest risk.

And, what this all amounts to is that the new rules appear to be somewhat less all-encompassing than those imposed Christmas Day, but are much more imposing than the rules in effect before suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Northwest flight in Schiphol Airport.

Without a doubt, the travel experience has once again changed for the forseeable future.

It remains to be seen how the U.S. will beef up security on domestic or outbound flights as these new rules apply only to in-bound flights.

On the domestic front, travelers may see increased law enforcement presence, but there aren’t major security changes as yet in place for U.S. originating flights.

On a side note, the TSA has indeed updated its website, in contast to the lack of information there about the new rules earlier today, with this statement. Still, not much detail there.

The TSA issued new security directives, effective Jan. 4, for all U.S. and international carriers with inbound flights to the U.S.

Here are the publicly available highlights from a statement the TSA sent to me:

• Every individual — i.e. 100% — flying into the U.S. and traveling from or through countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism “or other countries of interest” must go through “enhanced screening,” the TSA says in a statement.

• Travelers can expect the use of “enhanced screening technologies,” and the new directives also require “threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights,” whether they be operated by U.S. or international carriers.

I had asked the TSA for a “copy of the new security rules,” and a spokeswoman provided a statement outlining the above rules, but also noted:

“Security directives are Sensitive Security Information and cannot be released publicly, we do have a statement I can offer you…”

Well, given the Christmas Day terrorism incident onboard Northwest flight 253 and the uproar about two bloggers publishing the resulting security directive and getting Department of Homeland Security subpoenas, now dropped, I kind of realized that the Jan. 4 security directive would not be disseminated publicly by the TSA.

Still, as happened after the Northwest incident, the TSA website today, lacked any useful information about the new rules.

Or even mention of the new rules.

In fact, despite today’s TSA statement about the new security directives, there was nothing as of 4:40 p.m. EST Jan. 3 about the new rules on the TSA website.

On its website Jan. 3, the lastest TSA security update, described as “New,” was this Dec. 27 statement.

The TSA needs to do a better job of communicating with travelers.

I know it was a holiday period, but in these extraordinary times, the TSA would be wise to exert some effort into being more open with the public and to be more informative.

Being more transparent would only help the TSA in gaining broader support from the public.

Incidentally, read the comment here from travel agent Stephanie Diehl on why it is essential for the TSA to be more communicative with travelers.

UPDATE: Less than an hour after posting this story below, a source familiar with aspects of the TSA investigation confirms Tnooz speculation that TSA agents were in Frischling’s home on the evening of Dec. 29 when he tweeted a request to the source of the leaked security directive to contact him.

The agents allegedly wrote the tweet on Frischling’s Blackberry, handed it to him and then asked the blogger to send it, according to the source.

“That way, they could deny that they [the TSA] sent the tweet,” the source says.

The original post follows:

Steven Frischling, one of the two travel bloggers subpoenaed by the Dept. of Homeland Security and visited by TSA agents after publishing a security directive, tweeted Jan. 2 that he can’t comment on the “author” of a controversial tweet, issued from his account, at 10:05 p.m. on Dec. 29.

While two TSA agents likely were in his home at the time and allegedly were threatening to terminate Frischling’s ability to work with the airline industry unless he divulged the source of the security-directive leak, the Dec. 29 tweet from the FlyingWithFish Twitter account said the following:

“To the gentleman who sent Flying With Fish the TSA Security Directive … Thank You! Can you drop me an email?I have a question. Thanks-Fish.”

The tweet, from Frischling’s Blackberry, had a 7:05 p.m. time-stamp on Dec. 29.

Frischling stated publicly four days later, when he declined to comment on the author of that tweet — which seems so stylistically different from his other 13,042 tweets — that his Blackberry was set to Pacific Time so the tweet actually was made at 10:05 p.m. EST.

He’ also tweeted today, Jan. 2: “The TSA Special Agents arrived before 7:00pm [on Dec. 29], left around 9:00pm, returned around 10:00pm for a while.”

So that timing, which admittedly is imprecise, might have put the TSA agents by Frischling’s side when the tweet went out from his Twitter account, publicly asking the source to contact him again.

If the source had contacted Frischling again at that juncture, it seems likely the TSA would have obtained the e-mail right then and there.

Frischling invited me on Twitter to “speculate all you’d like on the author of the tweet sent from this account…”

Before I start speculating, I asked DHS via phone and e-mail if the TSA agents actually authored the tweet and pressured Frischling to tweet it, in the agents’ quest to hunt down the source of the leaked document. I also asked whether the TSA has identified the anonymous leaker and taken any actions.

A DHS spokeswoman Jan. 2 says: “I’ve shared your emails with HQ for Monday.  If we can back to you before then, we will, but with the investigation ongoing, there’s not much we are able to comment on publicly.”

So, can you think of any good reason — other than legal repercussions or fear of retribution — why Frischling wouldn’t comment on who actually authored the tweet?

Might someone other than Frischling have drafted the words for the tweet and then pressured Frischling to hit the send button on his Blackberry?

Might the authors have been one or both of the TSA agents or possibly their superiors?

Is Twitter now becoming an investigative tool for governmental authorities? Or maybe the more appropriate question is, how much of an investigative tool is Twitter becoming for law enforcement agencies?

Identifying the author of the tweet is important because Frischling argues that he acted appropriately in facing the TSA onslaught. Frishling says he doesn’t know the identity of the source of the leaked document and did nothing to assist investigators in corralling the source when he agreed, under pressure, to let the TSA examine his computer hard drive.

But, the Dec. 29 tweet from Frischling’s account makes it appear that he became part of the hunt to help the TSA identify the source of the leaked document because the tweet asked the “gentleman who sent Flying With Fish the TSA Security Directive … Thank You! Can you drop me an email?I have a question…”

But, if the TSA actually wrote that controversial tweet and coerced Frischling to tweet it, then that puts a different slant on the tweet and Frischling’s role.

Frischling and I have been going back and forth on Twitter and in the comments section of this post about whether the stance he took and tactics he used, when the TSA was badgering him for his source, were appropriate.

The TSA withdrew the subpoenas against Frischling and Chris Elliott on the evening of Dec. 31 after an outcry on social media networks and in the press. The story of the two travel bloggers getting subpoenaed got tremendous press coverage, with many people arguing that in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted terrorist incident onboard Northwest Airlines flight 253, the TSA might have better focused on improving security than using precious resources to harass two journalists.

Frischling consented to let the TSA examine his computer because he says he didn’t know the identity of the source and had nothing to hide.

Elliott, who might have faced a somewhat different set of circumstances, resisted the TSA’s efforts and didn’t provide the agency with any information about sources.

I tweeted and stated previously that Frischling’s Dec. 29 tweet, which seemed to be a not-very-veiled effort to find the source of the leak, appeared to ratchet up a notch his role in the investigation.

The fact that Frischling won’t comment on the “author” of that tweet, and the curious timing about when the tweet was published, makes me scratch my head and wonder whether or not this would be one of the first publicly discussed cases of Twitter coercion.

Journalist Chris Elliott says this evening that — a few hours after the Dept. of Homeland Security extended a deadline for him to comply with a subpoena — he received word from his attorney that DHS withdrew the subpoena.

The stunning reversal occurred as media outlets throughout the country picked up the story that the DHS and TSA were playing hardball and going after Elliott and blogger Steven Frischling with subpoenas and tough tactics after they published the post-Northwest flight 253 security directive on new passenger screening rules.

Perhaps dropping the subpoena on New Year’s Eve made more sense than letting the issue and the bad publicity for the TSA linger through upcoming news cycles.

Elliott, who wouldn’t comment while the subpoena was pending, says tonight, Dec. 31, that he was hearing all day from multiple sources that the “TSA was going to cave.”

“There definitely was some damage control going on here,” Elliott says.

Elliott says he feels “very pleased with the outcome” as he was prepared to dig in to protect confidential sources.

He was surprised with the speed of the DHS reversal, adding that he knew the department was considering withdrawing the subpoena, but expected the move to come perhaps next Monday or Tuesday.

Short of a withdrawal, Elliott says he and his attorney had been considering filing a motion to quash the subpoena or to allow the clock to run out and let the Jan. 20 deadline lapse. Earlier today, the DHS had extended the initial deadline for compliance with the subpoena from Dec. 31 to Jan. 20 at the request of Elliott’s attorney, but withdrew the subpoena outright this evening.

Among the issues that remain is whether the TSA investigators were able to find the source of the leaked document from their examination of Frischling’s computer or perhaps through other means, making the subpoena of Elliott unnecessary.

The TSA couldn’t be reached for comment.