Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - TSA customer relations in checkpoint queue

I can't quite work out how I feel about this so I thought I'd share and get everyone else's perspective. I was travelling from BZN to EWR on 7/14 and found that two out of four checkpoints were operational with around a five minute wait to get to the belts, although this was probably going to increase over the next ten minutes as the EWR, LAX and ORD bound pax moved airside. Most pax appeared to be travelling for leisure.

A TSO came through the checkpoint and started asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process, and also asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?" and telling me about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base not far from where I live.

The guy was totally pleasant, polite and professional, but a part of me wondered if his time couldn't have been better spent expediting pax through the checkpoint. Having said that, the two checkpoints that were open were well staffed and he clearly couldn't have opened another one on his own. On the other hand, if he wasn't fulfilling an essential role then why was he there at all? Presumably it takes (your) tax dollars to have him there?

Thoughts welcomed.

I can't quite work out how I feel about this so I thought I'd share and get everyone else's perspective. I was travelling from BZN to EWR on 7/14 and found that two out of four checkpoints were operational with around a five minute wait to get to the belts, although this was probably going to increase over the next ten minutes as the EWR, LAX and ORD bound pax moved airside. Most pax appeared to be travelling for leisure.

A TSO came through the checkpoint and started asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process, and also asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?" and telling me about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base not far from where I live.

The guy was totally pleasant, polite and professional, but a part of me wondered if his time couldn't have been better spent expediting pax through the checkpoint. Having said that, the two checkpoints that were open were well staffed and he clearly couldn't have opened another one on his own. On the other hand, if he wasn't fulfilling an essential role then why was he there at all? Presumably it takes (your) tax dollars to have him there?

Thoughts welcomed.

A guess only, but I get the feeling you had an encounter with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). Their job is in particular to observe passengers for behaviors that might signal a threat to an aircraft. Asking questions and providing advise enhances the officers ability to observe actions and reactions, and therefore assists them in their job. Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

Just a guess mind you, but it sounds about right to me.

A guess only, but I get the feeling you had an encounter with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). Their job is in particular to observe passengers for behaviors that might signal a threat to an aircraft. Asking questions and providing advise enhances the officers ability to observe actions and reactions, and therefore assists them in their job. Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

Just a guess mind you, but it sounds about right to me.

So, waste of taxpayer money.

So, waste of taxpayer money.

Yes, you nailed it.

So, waste of taxpayer money.

Stipulated, the "behavioral detection" portion of it is a waste. However, if it somehow manages to get a TSA employee to function in a helpful fashion (even directing a lost passenger to the nearest washroom) it's less wasteful than anything else the TSA is doing.

That said, I see no reason for such to be a federal position when there are volunteers doing that exact sort of thing at some airports. (The "Sky Harbor Navigators" in their purple jackets, as one example.)

Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

So are you implying that by simply ignoring said BDO -- not in a brusque manner, just simply not wanting to engage in conversation -- he could have escalated the matter and had you tagged for additional screening?

So are you implying that by simply ignoring said BDO -- not in a brusque manner, just simply not wanting to engage in conversation -- he could have escalated the matter and had you tagged for additional screening?

Which airport was it where the TSA escalated the screening because the woman was wearing a rival team's jersey through the checkpoint?

It would seem that a TSA employee can escalate the screening for any reason all, whether valid or not.

Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.


Why would I be nice to someone trampling on my Constitutional rights? :confused:

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

Which airport was it where the TSA escalated the screening because the woman was wearing a rival team's jersey through the checkpoint?

It would seem that a TSA employee can escalate the screening for any reason all, whether valid or not.

PHL, traveling due to the death of a family member:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5gtmRsyofk

"How does it feel to be a Cowboy's fan in Philadelphia?" - TSA clerk

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

And some of us can not hear well enough to engage in conversation at a noisy CP. Sometimes I do not know people are talking to me. If I ignore a BDO because I can not hear the BDO does that mark me for extra screening?

A guess only, but I get the feeling you had an encounter with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). Their job is in particular to observe passengers for behaviors that might signal a threat to an aircraft. Asking questions and providing advise enhances the officers ability to observe actions and reactions, and therefore assists them in their job. Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

Just a guess mind you, but it sounds about right to me.It sounds right to me, too.

Question: What happens if I'm preoccupied or simply not interested in engaging in conversation with a TSO who, like you, I suspect is a BDO? As we both have agreed, a TSO can ask anything he or she wants. However, I am not aware of any enforceable law that requires I respond. I don't know your opinion of the the BDO program, but mine is that it's utterly ridiculous -- I've explained why in other threads and won't go into it again here. My inclination when a state actor asks me something which he has no business either asking or knowing the answer to is to say, more or less politely (depending on the question, the context, and how it's asked), "None of your business."

What happens then?

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

That's all true but it doesn't go far enough. What kind of person is in a bad mood when talking to a screening clerk?

The kind of person who flies a lot and therefore encounters screening clerks frequently.

What kind of person is friendly and cooperative when talking to a screening clerk?

The kind of person who wants to avoid calling attention to himself.

What kind of person most wants to avoid calling attention to himself?

So yeah, what you say above is true and that by itself makes the BDO and SPOT and other rubbish an outrage, but in addition, the judgments they make are the opposite of the judgments they should be making.

Leave aside the fact that they are not trained enough or intelligent enough to make any judgments. IF somebody does want to do something to harm an aircraft, that person is going to engage with the screening clerk politely and respectfully and answer whatever idiotic questions the screening clerk asks. That person is going to hand over his water bottle at the gate for magic-strip testing, while leaving his deadly 11-ounce shaving cream can concealed in his roll-aboard. That person is not going to hand a suspicious NEXUS card to the document scribbler, and is going to answer promptly and accurately when the document scribbler asks for his or her name, without pointing out that the name is written on the boarding pass, or stating shock that the document scribbler can't read.

The scary terrorist who is going to blow up a plane with toothpaste, water, and a nail file is going to exhibit all the behaviors that the TSA takes to indicate that a passenger is not a threat.

So are you implying that by simply ignoring said BDO -- not in a brusque manner, just simply not wanting to engage in conversation -- he could have escalated the matter and had you tagged for additional screening?

I'm not sure if TSORon was implying anything of the sort.

However; you are 100% correct. A BDO can tag you for additional screening simply because you did not want to engage in conversation. You can also be tagged for being the wrong color, having (or not having) an accent, wearing loose fitting (or skin tight) clothing. In fact a BDO can tag you for additional screening for any reason whatsoever. Since the whole concept is nothing but voodoo science any reason is as good as any other.

google "tsa chatdowns"

USATODAY (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011-10-13/Next-layer-of-air-security-Chat-downs-on-top-of-pat-downs/50757204/1)

"Chat-downs already are controversial in their trial stage. Civil-liberties advocates and some critics of the TSA see them as another government invasion of fliers' privacy, a hassle for mostly law-abiding passengers or ineffectual.

"They're asking questions that people have a right not to answer," says Mike German, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. "It's nobody's business — and certainly not the government's business — where you're traveling and why."

So far, only 48 travelers out of about 132,000 who have been questioned here at Logan have refused to answer the questions, and instead their carry-on bags were physically searched."

My SOP when presented with this nonsense by a TSO is to simply ask the TSO if they are a BDO where I proceed to ask them questions like

Does the SPOT program work?

Have you caught someone other than one with a fake I/D or someone who has drugs on them?

Did you know that the Israeli BDO's receive upwards to a year to 18 months of training as compared to your two weeks?

Etc...

And usually after the second question, the TSO has presented the deer in the headlights look in perfect form and is so flummoxed that they either stop and/or move off to another location

"They're asking questions that people have a right not to answer," says Mike German, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. "It's nobody's business — and certainly not the government's business — where you're traveling and why."I am pleased that the ACLU has validated my legal opinion as to the legality of the BDO process.

So far, only 48 travelers out of about 132,000 who have been questioned here at Logan have refused to answer the questions, and instead their carry-on bags were physically searched.I'm sure that's a figure provided by TSA. I'd wager it has no more basis in fact than TSA's insistence that back-scatter x-ray scanners are "perfectly safe."

My SOP when presented with this nonsense by a TSO is to simply ask the TSO if they are a BDO where I proceed to ask them questions like

Does the SPOT program work?

Have you caught someone other than one with a fake I/D or someone who has drugs on them?

Did you know that the Israeli BDO's receive upwards to a year to 18 months of training as compared to your two weeks?

Etc...

And usually after the second question, the TSO has presented the deer in the headlights look in perfect form and is so flummoxed that they either stop and/or move off to another locationI love it! That's what I'm going to do next time.

What happens if I'm preoccupied or simply not interested in engaging in conversation with a TSO who, like you, I suspect is a BDO?

Except in some Southern states where TSO might speak Spanish, the TSA is essentially an English only outfit. If speaking with a BDO is a mandatory part of boarding a plane, then one of two conditions must be met.

One, since TSOs are English only, then speaking English must be made a condition for all pax who want to fly.

Or, two, TSA must make a reasonable effort to have speakers of all the languages they would reasonably expect to see daily at their checkpoint. Otherwise a terrorist just pretends not to speak English and avoids detection. For example, at the TBIT at LAX the TSA would need speakers of all the Asian languages at the checkpoint. I am sure every day elderly Asian who speak no English come to the US to visit their grandkids.

If speaking to a BDO is a preconditon to fly, it is up to the TSA to speak the pax's language, not the other way around. Otherwise, there can be no requirement for a pax to talk to them.

Except in some Southern states where TSO might speak Spanish, the TSA is essentially an English only outfit.

I have no idea what language they're usually bellowing at ATL, but it certainly isn't anything I'd call "English."

google "tsa chatdowns"

"...another government invasion of fliers' privacy, a hassle for mostly law-abiding passengers or ineffectual.



Substitute "all" for "mostly law-abiding" and "and" for "or" and you pretty much have a working description of the TSA.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

A guess only, but I get the feeling you had an encounter with a Behavior Detection Officer (BDO). Their job is in particular to observe passengers for behaviors that might signal a threat to an aircraft. Asking questions and providing advise enhances the officers ability to observe actions and reactions, and therefore assists them in their job. Being nice while doing so also helps them by not presenting a threatening presence when talking with the passengers.

Just a guess mind you, but it sounds about right to me.

The problem is that the most respected scientific journal in the World has not managed to uncover a single grain of scientific support for methods adopted by BDOs (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465412a.html). This is a pure waste of time and resources.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

I understand your objection ... but I think there is a point to the objections.
Here's the problem, at least from my perspective. (Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL).

When you're interacting with a LEO, and you're a suspect in a criminal proceeding, the LEO has to inform you of that fact, and make your rights clear to you before proceeding with questioning. Thus, you're fully informed as to the intent of the questions being asked, and how your answers will be used. If you're uncertain as to how to proceed, you have every right to request legal counsel, and for the interaction to cease until that point without any consequence to you.

When you're interacting with a TSO, having one of these conversations, the situation is far different. If the TSO is a BDO, the BDO does not have to identify him/herself to you as such. The TSO does not have to tell you that the answers to your questions are being used to determine your admissibility past the checkpoint, or to determine whether you should be subjected to additional screening. It is not clear at all what the consequences are for refusing to engage in such conversation; anecdotal information suggest that at least some TSOs use such refusal as a basis for retaliatory screening or denial of admissibility (D-Y-W-T-F-T). Of course, since TSA will not publicly discuss the standards for behavioral screening, citing "SSI", there's no way to know if such TSOs are acting within or outside the scope of their duties.

(To be fair: the consequences are very different in the two situations. The LEO can arrest you. The TSO can only deny you the opportunity to make your flight --- and in the case of larger airports, perhaps only temporarily.)

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

IMO, no answer is better than a wrong one. I do not make small talk at the CP. From the TDC to final clearance, I consider it the same as a criminal investigation. They are not there to make me happy or make it easier. The are there to find reasons to impede my progress. I try to not give them any. Now some here will say staying silent is evidence that I may be suspect. Think about that. By not communicating one becomes a suspect. Not probable cause or suspicious action, but by what one chooses to not do.

To me, that is scary.

As a woman who often travels alone, I would rather not have a discussion with a stranger about where I am traveling and what I will be doing there. Others could overhear and use the information to my disadvantage - decreasing rather than increasing my security.

I don't necessarily want to listen to some stranger blather about his kids, especially when I wish to focus removing shoes/belt/laptop, and on avoiding irradiation.

If I have questions about the security process I might ask them, or I might not, since a TSO may give an inaccurate answer - such as an assurance that the backscatter is absolutely safe. If they are patrolling in uniform, those who have questions can ask, without being prodded "Do you have questions?"

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

Ron suggested that the guy was a BDscreening clerk. That whole process is violation of constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. If he wasn't a screening clerk, it's a waste of taxpayer money.

It is not true that you could say that you saw a screening clerk chewing gum and people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money. We criticize the TSA because of what it does, not because we have a reflexive hatred of it.

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

One has to assume that the motivation behind any conversation with anyone wearing a TSA badge is to interrogate you. I, too, wish is wasn't this way. But, the TSA did it to themselves, and it's up to us to remind the "nice people" that we are treating them this way because of their agency's policies and because of their choice of employer.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?You miss the point. None are a violation of rights -- TSOs can ask anything they want. Demanding a response or, worse, penalizing you if you fail to respond by, for example, subjecting you to secondary screening is a violation of rights.

It sounds right to me, too.

Question: What happens if I'm preoccupied or simply not interested in engaging in conversation with a TSO who, like you, I suspect is a BDO? As we both have agreed, a TSO can ask anything he or she wants. However, I am not aware of any enforceable law that requires I respond. I don't know your opinion of the the BDO program, but mine is that it's utterly ridiculous -- I've explained why in other threads and won't go into it again here. My inclination when a state actor asks me something which he has no business either asking or knowing the answer to is to say, more or less politely (depending on the question, the context, and how it's asked), "None of your business."

What happens then?

Nothing, unless of course you exhibit the behaviors they are trained to look for. The BDO will still do their job.

Ron suggested that the guy was a BDscreening clerk. That whole process is violation of constitutional rights and a waste of taxpayer money.

You "might" want to read what PTravel has to say. Despite my personal misgivings about his career claims, many here believe that he is indeed an attorney and has some knowledge on the subject. Unless of course you are an attorney, which I doubt for some reason.

As a woman who often travels alone, I would rather not have a discussion with a stranger about where I am traveling and what I will be doing there. Others could overhear and use the information to my disadvantage - decreasing rather than increasing my security.

This!!!

I've never understood why the TSA doesn't seem to get it that many women aren't comfortable chatting away with strangers in strange places. Does no one in the government read the news about kidnappings and sexual assaults?

As a woman who often travels alone, I would rather not have a discussion with a stranger about where I am traveling and what I will be doing there. Others could overhear and use the information to my disadvantage - decreasing rather than increasing my security.

I don't necessarily want to listen to some stranger blather about his kids, especially when I wish to focus removing shoes/belt/laptop, and on avoiding irradiation.

If I have questions about the security process I might ask them, or I might not, since a TSO may give an inaccurate answer - such as an assurance that the backscatter is absolutely safe. If they are patrolling in uniform, those who have questions can ask, without being prodded "Do you have questions?"

Evidence of the lack of knowledge displayed by many TSA screeners can be found in numerous videos of TSA screeners telling people they can't video record the screening area. If TSA can't provide effective training and teach its employees something as simple as video recording is permissible then why should we expect TSA screeners to be competent in any other area of TSA processes?

You "might" want to read what PTravel has to say. Despite my personal misgivings about his career claims, many here believe that he is indeed an attorney and has some knowledge on the subject. Unless of course you are an attorney, which I doubt for some reason.

You mean #17? If you think PTravel's comment at #17 undermines my viewpoint, I have another question:

Is English your native language?

Nothing, unless of course you exhibit the behaviors they are trained to look for. The BDO will still do their job.

Not according to this article --

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011-10-13/Next-layer-of-air-security-Chat-downs-on-top-of-pat-downs/50757204/1

So far, only 48 travelers out of about 132,000 who have been questioned here at Logan have refused to answer the questions, and instead their carry-on bags were physically searched.

"If they refuse to answer, we (still) let them catch their flight," says Ed Freni, Logan's aviation director.

Passengers who refuse to play along and chat with the BDO face retaliatory searches that passengers who do play along do not face.

My SOP when presented with this nonsense by a TSO is to simply ask the TSO if they are a BDO where I proceed to ask them questions like

Does the SPOT program work?

Have you caught someone other than one with a fake I/D or someone who has drugs on them?

Did you know that the Israeli BDO's receive upwards to a year to 18 months of training as compared to your two weeks?

Etc...

And usually after the second question, the TSO has presented the deer in the headlights look in perfect form and is so flummoxed that they either stop and/or move off to another location
I'll have to remember this. :)
This!!!

I've never understood why the TSA doesn't seem to get it that many women aren't comfortable chatting away with strangers in strange places. Does no one in the government read the news about kidnappings and sexual assaults?
I too tend to not want to chat about my travel plans with strangers, figuring it's better to be safe.

This!!!

I've never understood why the TSA doesn't seem to get it that many women aren't comfortable chatting away with strangers in strange places. Does no one in the government read the news about kidnappings and sexual assaults?

And it's not just other passengers overhearing that you need to be worried about. I personally don't show a drivers license at the checkpoint because the TDC then knows my address AND that I'm leaving town and for where (at least the first destination). Now, you might argue that they aren't smart enough to remember addresses, but do you want to take that chance? Besides - it's best to not miss a chance to let them know they are more criminal than you are.

I'd certainly never have a chat with any TSA employee about my travel plans. Who knows what kind of shady background they have? Who knows if they're going to take some kind of criminal interest in you?

I've never understood why the TSA doesn't seem to get it that many women aren't comfortable chatting away with strangers in strange places.

that's not limited to women. I regularly respond with "I'm sorry but I don't discuss the personal details of my life with strangers". Seems to work.

I'd certainly never have a chat with any TSA employee about my travel plans. Who knows what kind of shady background they have? Who knows if they're going to take some kind of criminal interest in you?

Exactly. The percentage of TSOs who have been prosecuted for crimes is far higher than the percentage of all air travelers who are terrorists.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.It is not a violation of anyone's rights for a TSO/BDO to ask you questions which are "general in nature" as if in fact a BDO, is is their job to ask simple non-invasive questions and to "try and trick you up". However, it is also within my rights not to answer them and by doing so and/or asking the TSO if they are a BDO, I am not interfering with the screening process

However, it is also within my rights not to answer them and by doing so and/or asking the TSO if they are a BDO, I am not interfering with the screening process

How does that work? I dropped my boarding pass once at a checkpoint and was accused of interfering with the screening process.

How does that work? I dropped my boarding pass once at a checkpoint and was accused of interfering with the screening process.

"Interfering with the screening process" is to a TSO what "disorderly conduct" is to a cop.

It is not a violation of anyone's rights for a TSO/BDO to ask you questions which are "general in nature" as if in fact a BDO, is is their job to ask simple non-invasive questions and to "try and trick you up". However, it is also within my rights not to answer them and by doing so and/or asking the TSO if they are a BDO, I am not interfering with the screening process

Got it in one! :D

You mean #17? If you think PTravel's comment at #17 undermines my viewpoint, I have another question:

Is English your native language?

You may note that #17 was not hit first post. Do a search on his name and posts. He has some very interesting posts, even if I don’t agree with much of what he has to say.

When you're interacting with a LEO, and you're a suspect in a criminal proceeding, the LEO has to inform you of that fact, and make your rights clear to you before proceeding with questioning. Thus, you're fully informed as to the intent of the questions being asked, and how your answers will be used. If you're uncertain as to how to proceed, you have every right to request legal counsel, and for the interaction to cease until that point without any consequence to you.



I'm curious as to what qualifies you to make this (incorrect) statement?

You "might" want to read what PTravel has to say. Despite my personal misgivings about his career claims, many here believe that he is indeed an attorney and has some knowledge on the subject. Unless of course you are an attorney, which I doubt for some reason.California State Bar No. 160552. Feel free to look me up on the California State Bar website and give me a call.

California State Bar No. 160552. Feel free to look me up on the California State Bar website and give me a call.

Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)

Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)Uh-oh. Stalked already. ;)

One has to assume that the motivation behind any conversation with anyone wearing a TSA badge is to interrogate you. I, too, wish is wasn't this way. But, the TSA did it to themselves, and it's up to us to remind the "nice people" that we are treating them this way because of their agency's policies and because of their choice of employer.

This is the problem. Everyone wanting to fly is not wanting to cause a problem or commit a crime. There is no reason to attempt to trick anyone into a reason for anymore attention UNLESS you think they are wanting to do something wrong.

Just like the state your name game. There is no reason to want you to state your name when it matches the boarding pass and the ID and your face. Unless you are accusing me of being a criminal

Uh-oh. Stalked already. ;)

And same first names:D

In case you are not used to TSORon's modus operandi on FT:

- Attempt to develop credibility through the estabishment of credibility and pass yourself off as a "professional".

- Use a minimum of coherent text after the initial attempt at establishing credibility

- Attempt to destroy the credibility of any detractors and dissenters by calling into question their credentials or professional qualifications, either in a direct [is not a lawyer] or indirect [if you were what you say you are, then you would know].

- Continue to politely erode everybody else's credibility, because at the end of the day, the topic has been derailed which is the primary goal anyway.

All harmless fun, until one persons falls into the trap and goes away thinking that the TSA is actually making them safe. Oh well. Let's continue the banter.

In case you are not used to TSORon's modus operandi on FT:

- Attempt to develop credibility through the estabishment of credibility and pass yourself off as a "professional".

- Use a minimum of coherent text after the initial attempt at establishing credibility

- Attempt to destroy the credibility of any detractors and dissenters by calling into question their credentials or professional qualifications, either in a direct [is not a lawyer] or indirect [if you were what you say you are, then you would know].

- Continue to politely erode everybody else's credibility, because at the end of the day, the topic has been derailed which is the primary goal anyway.

All harmless fun, until one persons falls into the trap and goes away thinking that the TSA is actually making them safe. Oh well. Let's continue the banter.

Most here know that TSA and safety are not related.

Most here know that TSA employees are for the most part the leftovers from every other job field out there.

Most here know that engaging certain posters is a complete waste of time.

Most here know that TSA and safety are not related.

Most here know that TSA employees are for the most part the leftovers from every other job field out there.

Most here know that engaging certain posters is a complete waste of time.

%s/Most/All/g

FTFY. HTH. HAND.

In case you are not used to TSORon's modus operandi on FT:

- Attempt to develop credibility through the estabishment of credibility and pass yourself off as a "professional".

- Use a minimum of coherent text after the initial attempt at establishing credibility

- Attempt to destroy the credibility of any detractors and dissenters by calling into question their credentials or professional qualifications, either in a direct [is not a lawyer] or indirect [if you were what you say you are, then you would know].

- Continue to politely erode everybody else's credibility, because at the end of the day, the topic has been derailed which is the primary goal anyway.

All harmless fun, until one persons falls into the trap and goes away thinking that the TSA is actually making them safe. Oh well. Let's continue the banter.

It's worse than that. You forgot about the claims that cannot be backed up, and are then dropped down the memory hole, such as the one referenced here:

Since I [BubbaLoop] seem to miss "quite a bit" of your information, could you please point me exactly to the part in which a test strip (not an electronic "sniffer" like the one you showed here, which, by the way, also does not detect peroxides) waved above a solution is capable of detecting peroxides.

I'm curious as to what qualifies you to make this (incorrect) statement?

Absolutely nothing --- as I made clear in my disclaimer, which you omitted.

I would be happy to be corrected, of course, if you're better qualified than I to comment on this topic.

Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)Uh-oh. Stalked already. ;)Need an attorney? ;)

Absolutely nothing --- as I made clear in my disclaimer, which you omitted.

I would be happy to be corrected, of course, if you're better qualified than I to comment on this topic.

I am so glad to hear you say that. If you were a LEO, lawyer or judge I would have been very concerned.

Regarding your "disclaimer", I didn't see it so my appologies. However, the way you wrote your comments as what appeared to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion, led me to believe that you were insinuating that you had a degree of expertise in the subject. My interpertation, I guess.

What you wrote is a common misconception among lay people but has several errors in it.

A LEO does not have to inform you that you are a suspect in a criminal proceeding. If this were the case then undercover work would not happen. Can you imagine a UC cop saying "I suspect you of being a drug dealer"?

A LEO also does not have to advise you of your rights automatically. The rights you speak of were granted under a Supreme Court decision (Miranda vs Arizona, 1966) and generally only have to be delivered to a person when there is a custodial interrogation that is about to occur. For example, if the person is not in custody (IE not under arrest or detention or being interviewed over the phone, etc) the person does not need to be "Mirandized".

As far as I can recall (and I may be a bit off on this one, it's been a long time since I studied this stuff) there is also no requirement to say how the information gained is to be used. The court ruling did not specify the exact wording to be used and it varies from place to place, but they did provide a recommendation and I believe that it said "anything the person says WILL be used against that person in court" but some jurisdictions say "can and will" while others say "may be", etc.

It's also important to note that, although rarely done, a LEO does NOT have to Mirandize you prior to questioning, even when in custody but if they chose not to the information gained can't be used against YOU.

Should a person opt to envoke their Miranda rights, the interaction does not have to stop but questioning usually does due to the inadmissibility of their statements.

Regardless of whether a person has been Mirandized or not and regardless of whether they have envoked these rights any spontaneous statement made by the person can still be used against them.

I hope this clears things up. If not you may want to Google "Miranda vs Arizona (1966)"

I am so glad to hear you say that. If you were a LEO, lawyer or judge I would have been very concerned.

Regarding your "disclaimer", I didn't see it so my appologies. However, the way you wrote your comments as what appeared to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion, led me to believe that you were insinuating that you had a degree of expertise in the subject. My interpertation, I guess.

What you wrote is a common misconception among lay people but has several errors in it.

A LEO does not have to inform you that you are a suspect in a criminal proceeding. If this were the case then undercover work would not happen. Can you imagine a UC cop saying "I suspect you of being a drug dealer"?

A LEO also does not have to advise you of your rights automatically. The rights you speak of were granted under a Supreme Court decision (Miranda vs Arizona, 1966) and generally only have to be delivered to a person when there is a custodial interrogation that is about to occur. For example, if the person is not in custody (IE not under arrest or detention or being interviewed over the phone, etc) the person does not need to be "Mirandized".

As far as I can recall (and I may be a bit off on this one, it's been a long time since I studied this stuff) there is also no requirement to say how the information gained is to be used. The court ruling did not specify the exact wording to be used and it varies from place to place, but they did provide a recommendation and I believe that it said "anything the person says WILL be used against that person in court" but some jurisdictions say "can and will" while others say "may be", etc.

It's also important to note that, although rarely done, a LEO does NOT have to Mirandize you prior to questioning, even when in custody but if they chose not to the information gained can't be used against YOU.

Should a person opt to envoke their Miranda rights, the interaction does not have to stop but questioning usually does due to the inadmissibility of their statements.

Regardless of whether a person has been Mirandized or not and regardless of whether they have envoked these rights any spontaneous statement made by the person can still be used against them.

I hope this clears things up. If not you may want to Google "Miranda vs Arizona (1966)"

And your expertise in the subject?

Most here know that engaging certain posters is a complete waste of time.

Well, no.

It caused Bubbaloop and others to provide some interesting information about chemistry in the other thread, and in this thread it caused Bubbaloop to link to that "Nature" article. Engaging some posters may not elicit any useful or intelligent response from those posters, and may not inform those posters, but it can certainly inform other readers of the thread, who may be more receptive to information.

And you expertise in the subject?

That is about right, actually. The key is whether the subject of the interrogation perceives that he is free to leave.

Need an attorney? ;)No, but I might need someone good with a hockey stick. :)

And your expertise in the subject?

A degree in criminal justice and 6.5 years as a LEO (18 months big city and 5 years low level Fed) although I've been out of the job for over 15 years now.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?
As others have said, none is a violation of rights. That doesn't make the process okay, however.

I don't have a problem with #1 if it's asked in a genuine, helpful way (and not the attitude that any problem at the checkpoint is because passengers are stupid.) At worst, it's redundant; most people with questions figure out they can ask someone in the relevant uniform.

(#1 also assumes that the person answering questions has the same understanding of the process as the screener further up the line. No point asking "do I need to remove my iPad" if everyone isn't on the same page.)

#2 is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Whether I'm going to Disneyland has no bearing on a check of my person and baggage for WEI. Perhaps the passenger is traveling to a funeral and is just barely holding their emotions in check. It's none of TSA's d@mn business where or why I'm traveling.

#3 is an unnecessary waste of time. I'm not his Facebook friend; I'm not his bartender; we're not building a relationship here. I don't really care that he has children, much less what they do.

To see how ridiculous this is, imagine this scenario at other places where the public interacts with the gov't.

You walk into the post office and there's a long line. An employee (instead of serving customers) stands inside the door talking to people as they join the line.
1. "Do you have any questions about the post office today?"
2. "Who is that letter addressed to? What did you say? Is that package a birthday present? Who is it for?" *
3. "My son has a shirt just like yours. He works in New York. He's getting married in August. I'm going to go visit him next week..."

* Note that the person at the counter has a legitimate requirement to know the name and address on the envelope or package, and may need to know what's in the package. But not the time-waster at the door.

Or the DMV. There's a long line. But an extraneous employee is talking to the people lined up.
1. "Do you have any questions about the DMV today?"
2. "What kind of car do you drive? What color is it? Does it get good mileage?"
3. "My sister just bought a new car. She likes blueberry pie. Do you like blueberry pie? I remember once when she was younger she ate a whole blueberry pie and then she was sick for a week. ... "

* Note that the person at the counter may have a legitimate requirement to know the make/model of my car for some transactions. But not the time-waster at the door.

Need an attorney? ;)No, but I might need someone good with a hockey stick. :)Game on and got your back ^ (and goalies do have bigger sticks ;))

Wow, and wow!

Just checked back in on this thread for the first time since my initial post and find that what I took to be an innocuous and potentially helpful approach from a TSO now appears to be much more sinister. As a conversationalist the officer in question was pleasant, if not a sparkling must-have dinner guest, but if he was trying detect abnormal behaviour on my part then I've got to say that he was about as effective as a chocolate teapot! He didn't look me in the eye and seemed more interested in talking to me than listening to what I had to say.

I'm not one of those who will necessarily stand up for my rights at all costs (and by that I mean that I'd rather tell the TSO I'm headed home/to Disneyland than possibly subject myself to a private interview, strip search and delayed journey) but I will now think twice before answering questions from these under-skilled nincompoops in the future.

All-in-all, I'm glad I started this.

Just checked back in on this thread for the first time since my initial post and find that what I took to be an innocuous and potentially helpful approach from a TSO now appears to be much more sinister.

And, as I tried to say up-thread ... for an ordinary passenger, there's no way to know the difference. It's sad when we have to treat every interaction with strangers as suspicious, but the TSA has defined the rules of engagement in that way.

What a wonderful way to treat the "19th layer of security". :(

Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)

Ahh, but did you call him? That is indeed the test.

Wow, and wow!

Just checked back in on this thread for the first time since my initial post and find that what I took to be an innocuous and potentially helpful approach from a TSO now appears to be much more sinister. As a conversationalist the officer in question was pleasant, if not a sparkling must-have dinner guest, but if he was trying detect abnormal behaviour on my part then I've got to say that he was about as effective as a chocolate teapot! He didn't look me in the eye and seemed more interested in talking to me than listening to what I had to say.

That’s pretty much how TSA is viewed in this venue. Nothing we can do is right, and everything we do is wrong. And anything that goes wrong at an airport is automatically TSA’s fault until proven otherwise. They ignore the most basic of precepts of criminal law in that everyone, no exceptions, is innocent until proven guilty. Something they demand from us, but are unwilling to acknowledge as our rights as well. Basic, and no amount of prior actions can or will change that, but not something the TSA and its employees are afforded here.

I'm not one of those who will necessarily stand up for my rights at all costs (and by that I mean that I'd rather tell the TSO I'm headed home/to Disneyland than possibly subject myself to a private interview, strip search and delayed journey) but I will now think twice before answering questions from these under-skilled nincompoops in the future.

All-in-all, I'm glad I started this.

Tell the TSO/BDO what you like, they are not really giving much attention to your word but instead are doing their jobs and watching your actions and reactions.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression) is a bit on the basic concepts of the BDO’s training. Its not exhaustive, but it is informative for the lay person.

Ahh, but did you call him? That is indeed the test.

Ron, he want's you to call him not me.....I don't think you'll do it.

I know it's sacrilegious to defend the TSA on here, but OP mentioned 3 things that the TSO in question was doing:

1. asking pax if they had any questions about the screening process

2. asking conversational questions like "are you going to Disneyland?"

3. talking about how his son was just finishing a posting to a USAF base.

Which one of these three is a violation of your rights, and how?

The TSA does plenty of things that legitimately deserve criticism, but sometimes I think that people on FT have an automatic reflex that immediately criticizes anything they do. I could post a message on here saying "Today I saw a TSO chewing gum" and immediately people would claim a violation of their constitutional rights and waste of taxpayer money.

Question 1: legitimate

Question 2 and Comment 3: If these are sneaky BDO-wannabe gambits, they are both time-wasters (no one else behind the pax in line? does the pax have the time to engage in small talk?) Is it a documented requirement that pax engage in small talk with a TSO just because the TSO wants to chat?

I understand your objection ... but I think there is a point to the objections.
Here's the problem, at least from my perspective. (Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL).

When you're interacting with a LEO, and you're a suspect in a criminal proceeding, the LEO has to inform you of that fact, and make your rights clear to you before proceeding with questioning. Thus, you're fully informed as to the intent of the questions being asked, and how your answers will be used. If you're uncertain as to how to proceed, you have every right to request legal counsel, and for the interaction to cease until that point without any consequence to you.

When you're interacting with a TSO, having one of these conversations, the situation is far different. If the TSO is a BDO, the BDO does not have to identify him/herself to you as such. The TSO does not have to tell you that the answers to your questions are being used to determine your admissibility past the checkpoint, or to determine whether you should be subjected to additional screening. It is not clear at all what the consequences are for refusing to engage in such conversation; anecdotal information suggest that at least some TSOs use such refusal as a basis for retaliatory screening or denial of admissibility (D-Y-W-T-F-T). Of course, since TSA will not publicly discuss the standards for behavioral screening, citing "SSI", there's no way to know if such TSOs are acting within or outside the scope of their duties.

(To be fair: the consequences are very different in the two situations. The LEO can arrest you. The TSO can only deny you the opportunity to make your flight --- and in the case of larger airports, perhaps only temporarily.)

In short: when a TSO begins such a smalltalk conversation with a passenger, there's no way for the passenger to know whether the TSO is honestly trying to be friendly and helpful, or whether the TSO is engaging in a criminal interrogation of a suspected terrorist. And that's sad.

^ Excellent post.

That is about right, actually. The key is whether the subject of the interrogation perceives that he is free to leave.

No one involved in any dialogue or 'exception' situation with a TSO is ever 'free to leave' (ask Rand Paul).

In theory, TSA has no authority to detain anyone. In practice, between the LEOs who answer to TSA and the physical set up of the checkpoints (and the over-arching fear of being put on the No-fly list as retaliation), TSA has unlimited abilty to detain and has successfully established this many times.

No one involved in any dialogue or 'exception' situation with a TSO is ever 'free to leave' (ask Rand Paul).


Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.

Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.

So what is your opinion (not challenging, just trying to understand) - does a pax have a legal right to decline to answer TSA questions?

I don't mean a secret 'SSI' SOP that varies with the time of day and the mood of the TSO - and can't be verified one way or the other, even in a court of law.

We've seen reports of TSA using police as sort of proxy agents. Pax refuses to submit ID to TSA for copying. TSA summons police, police demand ID, pax surrenders ID to LEO and LEO hands ID to TSA for copying and registry in federal government databases as a trouble-maker. I could, I'm guessing, decline to answer questions to an LEO - can I legally decline to answer a TSO's questions? If so, am I then legally subject to administrative fines?

TSA can (and will) share any information I give them with law enforcement - they may share the answers to questions that I would decline to answer if asked by an LEO without an attorney present.

So what is your opinion (not challenging, just trying to understand) - does a pax have a legal right to decline to answer TSA questions?

I don't mean a secret 'SSI' SOP that varies with the time of day and the mood of the TSO - and can't be verified one way or the other, even in a court of law.

We've seen reports of TSA using police as sort of proxy agents. Pax refuses to submit ID to TSA for copying. TSA summons police, police demand ID, pax surrenders ID to LEO and LEO hands ID to TSA for copying and registry in federal government databases as a trouble-maker. I could, I'm guessing, decline to answer questions to an LEO - can I legally decline to answer a TSO's questions? If so, am I then legally subject to administrative fines?

TSA can (and will) share any information I give them with law enforcement - they may share the answers to questions that I would decline to answer if asked by an LEO without an attorney present.

All good questions. Keeping in mind that I was a LEO, not a lawyer, and it was in the 1990s long before the TSA was even thought of, I'll answer what I can.

From what I understand, a TSO can ask you literally anything and you don't have to answer anything. This may be incorrect with regards to your identity, I'm not sure.

When you speak of "administrative fines" are you talking about money? IE can they write you a ticket if you refuse to answer their questions? If so the answer, again to my knowledge, is no.

In some places it is a crime to fail to identify yourself to a LEO and most (all?) of the time a LEO can detain you for the purpose of determining your identity should you refuse to identify yourself to them. This usually involves running your fingerprints through NCIC or similar. Keep in mind that TSOs are not LEOs and, as stated, I don't know what their powers (if any) are to demand that you identify yourself to them.

Once a LEO requests your identity documents and you provide them to the LEO, does s/he then have the legal right to hand those documents over to the TSO for data entry purposes? I'm not sure.

Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.That's what some (n.b. some) TSO's think ;)

That’s pretty much how TSA is viewed in this venue. Nothing we can do is right, and everything we do is wrong. And anything that goes wrong at an airport is automatically TSA’s fault until proven otherwise. They ignore the most basic of precepts of criminal law in that everyone, no exceptions, is innocent until proven guilty. Something they demand from us, but are unwilling to acknowledge as our rights as well. Basic, and no amount of prior actions can or will change that, but not something the TSA and its employees are afforded here.First of all, "innocent until proven guilty," is a misstatement of the legal standard, which is, "the state bears the burden of proving guilt." It does not mean someone is innocent until proven guilty, but that, before they can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the context of a criminal action, the state must meet its burden of proof.

TSA is not on trial. TSA is a government agency that, time and again, has demonstrated incompetence, corruption, scientific and technolgoical ignorance, and contempt for the Constitution of the United States. TSA has wasted billions of dollars and contributed virtually nothing to the safety of commercial aviation. The three known terrorist attacks against US aviation since 9/11 were not detected, much less contravened, by TSA.

So, please -- spare me, "innocent until proven guilty." As I said, TSA is not on trial.

First of all, "innocent until proven guilty," is a misstatement of the legal standard, which is, "the state bears the burden of proving guilt." It does not mean someone is innocent until proven guilty, but that, before they can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the context of a criminal action, the state must meet its burden of proof.

TSA is not on trial. TSA is a government agency that, time and again, has demonstrated incompetence, corruption, scientific and technolgoical ignorance, and contempt for the Constitution of the United States. TSA has wasted billions of dollars and contributed virtually nothing to the safety of commercial aviation. The three known terrorist attacks against US aviation since 9/11 were not detected, much less contravened, by TSA.

So, please -- spare me, "innocent until proven guilty." As I said, TSA is not on trial.

TSA should be on trial!

When you speak of "administrative fines" are you talking about money? IE can they write you a ticket if you refuse to answer their questions? If so the answer, again to my knowledge, is no.

The 'administrative fines' can run as high as $11k, IIRC. They are administered by TSA - based on statements made about John Tyner ("don't touch my junk"), the fines can be levied weeks or months after the incident in question (probably just after any relevant tapes have been 'lost'). I believe there may be a single appeals opportunity, but not in a court of law.

No idea what happens if you don't pay the fine (like when an unpaid library fine gets turned over to LEOs) or if being fined automatically earns you a spot on the 'watch list'.

Someone has posted the actual list of fines - keep in mind, anything you do at the checkpoint can be labelled 'interfering with the screening process', even politely asking a question or bending down to pick up something you've dropped.

(duplicate post!)

Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.

An excellent reason to stop issuing them the LEO costumes, don't you think?

The 'administrative fines' can run as high as $11k, IIRC. They are administered by TSA - based on statements made about John Tyner ("don't touch my junk"), the fines can be levied weeks or months after the incident in question (probably just after any relevant tapes have been 'lost'). I believe there may be a single appeals opportunity, but not in a court of law.

No idea what happens if you don't pay the fine (like when an unpaid library fine gets turned over to LEOs) or if being fined automatically earns you a spot on the 'watch list'.

Someone has posted the actual list of fines - keep in mind, anything you do at the checkpoint can be labelled 'interfering with the screening process', even politely asking a question or bending down to pick up something you've dropped.

Fair enough (your comment, not the fines or ability to levy them). Until I have the time to research things for myself I'll take what you've said at face value.

An excellent reason to stop issuing them the LEO costumes, don't you think?

Quite possibly. This has been a topic of debate regarding non-LEOs (IE security guards, etc) for quite some time now.

Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.
Wow! An exposition on American constitutional law from an Australian ambulance driver. I'm impressed. Miranda applies to stoolies in a prison who are working with the government. See People v. Perkins, 531 N.E.2d 141 (Ill. App. 1988) and Uhlmann v. Wilson, 106 S.Ct. 2616 (1986).. Why wouldn't it apply to clearly inferior people like TSOs? Possibly because the stoolie is a more effective interrogator than a BDO/TSO?

Possibly because the stoolie is a more effective interrogator than a BDO/TSO?

Of course, the bar is set pretty low in that comparison...

To see how ridiculous this is, imagine this scenario at other places where the public interacts with the gov't.

You walk into the post office and there's a long line. An employee (instead of serving customers) stands inside the door talking to people as they join the line.
1. "Do you have any questions about the post office today?"
2. "Who is that letter addressed to? What did you say? Is that package a birthday present? Who is it for?" *
3. "My son has a shirt just like yours. He works in New York. He's getting married in August. I'm going to go visit him next week..."


This happens quite often at my post office. If there is a long line, someone will go through and see what each person wants, and inform them if they have the wrong customs form or something. Usually at least a few people will be told that they don't need to wait in line because their task can be completed at the vending machine. Sometimes there is small talk, especially for repeat visitors that the staff recognize. This is called good customer service, and it is not "ridiculous" at all.

Wow, and wow!

Just checked back in on this thread for the first time since my initial post and find that what I took to be an innocuous and potentially helpful approach from a TSO now appears to be much more sinister. As a conversationalist the officer in question was pleasant, if not a sparkling must-have dinner guest, but if he was trying detect abnormal behaviour on my part then I've got to say that he was about as effective as a chocolate teapot! He didn't look me in the eye and seemed more interested in talking to me than listening to what I had to say.


Anything a TSO does will appear to be sinister to certain people on here. If he was more interested in talking than listening to you, then in all likelihood he was not a BDO, but rather just a bored employee looking to kill some time.

The 'administrative fines' can run as high as $11k, IIRC. They are administered by TSA - based on statements made about John Tyner ("don't touch my junk"), the fines can be levied weeks or months after the incident in question (probably just after any relevant tapes have been 'lost'). I believe there may be a single appeals opportunity, but not in a court of law.


The administrative fines are for refusal to complete the screening process, i.e., go through the metal detector, AIT or patdown, etc. You cannot be fined for refusal to answer questions, although if you refuse to answer questions, are selected for a patdown, and refuse, then I guess you could be fined.

BTW, Miranda applies to all government workers, however only for criminal matters. It is based on the 5th amendment, which says that you cannot be deprived of "life or limb" without due process. Therefore, Miranda would not come into play unless the government attempted to prosecute you for something you said at the checkpoint. If the consequence is denial of entry to the checkpoint, there is no Miranda issue.

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

Exactly! Some have to travel to clean up some sort of company 'mess' or worse.

Wow! An exposition on American constitutional law from an Australian ambulance driver.

You're showing your ignorance and personal biases (as you have in other threads) Doc. I'm a US citizen with a degree in criminal justice issued by an American institution and I'm a Paramedic Practitioner (among other things) so I don't drive ambulances. If anything I work in the back of them.

Anything a TSO does will appear to be sinister to certain people on here.

That's most likely because some people see any person who'll accept a paycheck for molesting passengers, or working shoulder-to-shoulder with thieves, thugs, and perverts, as "sinister."

If he was more interested in talking than listening to you, then in all likelihood he was not a BDO, but rather just a bored employee looking to kill some time.

OK, so this references back to my original post. If he was "bored" and "looking to kill some time" then clearly he was surplus to requirements at a cost that is picked up by the US taxpayer. Doesn't this trouble you?

This happens quite often at my post office. If there is a long line, someone will go through and see what each person wants, and inform them if they have the wrong customs form or something. Usually at least a few people will be told that they don't need to wait in line because their task can be completed at the vending machine. Sometimes there is small talk, especially for repeat visitors that the staff recognize. This is called good customer service, and it is not "ridiculous" at all.

I did consider this scenario and wasn't sure about it either way, hence my original posting. I didn't really think the line was long enough to warrant this though.

If he was "bored" and "looking to kill some time" then clearly he was surplus to requirements at a cost that is picked up by the US taxpayer. Doesn't this trouble you?

For me ... based on only one data point, no. Traffic through an airport checkpoint doesn't proceed at a steady rate; there will be times of high-demand and times of low-demand. If TSA staffs its checkpoint for low-demand times, there will never be idle TSOs --- but there will be long checkpoint lines (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their time). If TSA staffs its checkpoint for high-demand times, there will be moments when TSOs are idle (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their tax dollars).

About the only thing constant is FT screaming about the TSA. :)

For me ... based on only one data point, no. Traffic through an airport checkpoint doesn't proceed at a steady rate; there will be times of high-demand and times of low-demand. If TSA staffs its checkpoint for low-demand times, there will never be idle TSOs --- but there will be long checkpoint lines (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their time). If TSA staffs its checkpoint for high-demand times, there will be moments when TSOs are idle (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their tax dollars).

About the only thing constant is FT screaming about the TSA. :)

A fair point in general, but a single TSO isn't going to be enough to open a third checkpoint on his own, and if they had enough staff to have a third checkpoint open then why wasn't it open already?

A fair point in general, but a single TSO isn't going to be enough to open a third checkpoint on his own, and if they had enough staff to have a third checkpoint open then why wasn't it open already?

Having one or two extra bodies around the checkpoint is usually a good thing. Stuff happens that having an extra body around would make easier to handle. A passenger requests/requires a pat-down screening, taking another person away from the "normal" flow of the checkpoint. Another passenger requires assistance in proceeding through the checkpoint (e.g. physical disability). A passenger reports a lost item, requiring a trip back to the office to check the lost-and-found repository. And that's just the "nice" examples.

For me ... based on only one data point, no. Traffic through an airport checkpoint doesn't proceed at a steady rate; there will be times of high-demand and times of low-demand. If TSA staffs its checkpoint for low-demand times, there will never be idle TSOs --- but there will be long checkpoint lines (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their time). If TSA staffs its checkpoint for high-demand times, there will be moments when TSOs are idle (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their tax dollars).

About the only thing constant is FT screaming about the TSA. :)

Very true, and this applies in any place with a fluctuating 'customer' base - McDonald's, bank drive-through lanes, movie theaters, DMV...

Somehow the rest of the world seems to have mastered this problem at airport checkpoints. I have honestly simply never ever seen the 'thousands standing around' security folks at any non-US airport. There are a fraction of the number of people and at any given time, they really all do seem to have a purpose. Of course, I haven't witnessed challenging positions like 'WTMD blocker' or 'walk around and bark TSO' or 'stand around waiting to do a grope TSO' or 'stand around prepared to gawk if anything interesting happens' or 'xray belt input rearranger' or 'groper monitor'.

(Note: sadly, the same appropriate staffing doesn't seem to extend to customs/immigration, either here or outside the US).

You're showing your ignorance and personal biases (as you have in other threads) Doc. I'm a US citizen with a degree in criminal justice issued by an American institution and I'm a Paramedic Practitioner (among other things) so I don't drive ambulances. If anything I work in the back of them.

My mistake from seeing your pics of "your" dirty ambulance in Australia, Tom.

The 'administrative fines' can run as high as $11k, IIRC. They are administered by TSA - based on statements made about John Tyner ("don't touch my junk"), the fines can be levied weeks or months after the incident in question (probably just after any relevant tapes have been 'lost'). I believe there may be a single appeals opportunity, but not in a court of law.

No idea what happens if you don't pay the fine (like when an unpaid library fine gets turned over to LEOs) or if being fined automatically earns you a spot on the 'watch list'.

.



OK, here's the scoop. It's not a "fine" and the effects of non-payment are totally different than if it were. It is a "civil penalty" and the TSA has absolutely no enforcement powers with respect to the fine. No collection efforts, no contempt powers. It is in no way illegal to ignore the assessment. If the goon squad wants to get serious about it, they have to find a US Attorney in the right jurisdiction who will agree to drop everything else and file a civil lawsuit to collect the penalty. There are a lot of factors militating against such a course of action.First, Us Attorneys have a lot on their plates. They are responsible for all federal criminal cases in their district, including most post-conviction relief cases, as well as defending all civil cases in their district which might be filed against any federal department, office, or officer, They also provide legal support to all federal LEOs in their district. Finally, as appointed officials, they are very, very political and always have an eye to future office. Rudy Guliani, as a former USA for the Southern District of NY, comes immediately to mind. Being known for being in the back pocket of the second, for now, most despised agency in the government is not politically expedient. I would hazard a guess that US Attorneys are much more experienced, and inclined, to prosecute TSA criminals than to collect their civil penalties.

Traffic through an airport checkpoint doesn't proceed at a steady rate; there will be times of high-demand and times of low-demand. If TSA staffs its checkpoint for low-demand times, there will never be idle TSOs --- but there will be long checkpoint lines (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their time). If TSA staffs its checkpoint for high-demand times, there will be moments when TSOs are idle (at which point, the FT population will scream about the waste of their tax dollars).
There is an entire branch of mathematics devoted to queuing theory and the optimization of queue management. The data necessary to drive optimization algorithms for checkpoint setup and staffing is certainly available to the TSA. Whether or not they have anybody in that organization that can do something with it is up for speculation.

I still vividly remember a class in queuing theory that I took years ago as an undergrad in engineering school. Fascinating stuff but it made my head hurt then (and now!).

There is an entire branch of mathematics devoted to queuing theory and the optimization of queue management. The data necessary to drive optimization algorithms for checkpoint setup and staffing is certainly available to the TSA. Whether or not they have anybody in that organization that can do something with it is up for speculation.

I still vividly remember a class in queuing theory that I took years ago as an undergrad in engineering school. Fascinating stuff but it made my head hurt then (and now!).

The thing about queueing theory is this: queuing theory works to optimize throughput versus cost in the aggregate. At any single point in time, an observer might see a long line, or an empty line. Over time, however, queueing theory tries to minimize both of those items versus any other unmanaged strategy.

Which is why it's terribly hard to respond to a single datapoint, like the one offered by the OP.

The entire premise of SPOT and BDOs hinges on the assumption that everyone flying is in a good mood: that they're embarking on their Disney World vacation or honeymoon or are about to seal a business deal or are going to their son's wedding.

Guess what? Some passengers are flying to funerals; others are flying to visit sick relatives who may have days left to live.

And the last thing those passengers need is to be judged harshly, and potentially face extra screening, because they did not sufficiently satisfy a BDO that their jitters are not a precursor to blowing up a plane.

Remember that the entire premise of behavior detection is junk science of the worst kind, so it is only right that it would find a home at TSA.

One has to assume that the motivation behind any conversation with anyone wearing a TSA badge is to interrogate you. I, too, wish is wasn't this way. But, the TSA did it to themselves, and it's up to us to remind the "nice people" that we are treating them this way because of their agency's policies and because of their choice of employer.

^^ I refuse to enage any TSA employee with conversation other than what is necessary for me to get past their foolishness and go on my way.

IMO, no answer is better than a wrong one. I do not make small talk at the CP. From the TDC to final clearance, I consider it the same as a criminal investigation. They are not there to make me happy or make it easier. The are there to find reasons to impede my progress. I try to not give them any. Now some here will say staying silent is evidence that I may be suspect. Think about that. By not communicating one becomes a suspect. Not probable cause or suspicious action, but by what one chooses to not do.

To me, that is scary.

I completely agree. I do not respond to entreaties, no matter how socially "right" or trivial, from any person in the checkpoint who is with the TSA or might be with the TSA. I remain silent to all questions, directives, hassling, etc. Only after I opt out do I respond to questions about the groping procedure; and this is where I then do my pushback as needed (especially referring to the "resistance" in medically correct terms and so on).

This is an indoctrination effort underway on the travelling public. To me, it's no different from "Geben Sie mir Ihre Reisepapiere!"

First of all, "innocent until proven guilty," is a misstatement of the legal standard, which is, "the state bears the burden of proving guilt." It does not mean someone is innocent until proven guilty, but that, before they can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the context of a criminal action, the state must meet its burden of proof.

TSA is not on trial. TSA is a government agency that, time and again, has demonstrated incompetence, corruption, scientific and technolgoical ignorance, and contempt for the Constitution of the United States. TSA has wasted billions of dollars and contributed virtually nothing to the safety of commercial aviation. The three known terrorist attacks against US aviation since 9/11 were not detected, much less contravened, by TSA.

So, please -- spare me, "innocent until proven guilty." As I said, TSA is not on trial.

Oh I understand the concepts, quite well I might add.

But please feel free to point that out to your fellow posters when they make like remarks concerning the TSA's screening. Or do you feel that you cannot cite the law in such instances because of your personal bias?

Oh I understand the concepts, quite well I might add.

But please feel free to point that out to your fellow posters when they make like remarks concerning the TSA's screening.I usually do.

Or do you feel that you cannot cite the law in such instances because of your personal bias?"Personal bias"? Care to hazard a guess as to why I have a bias against TSA? Hint: it's in my post that you quoted.

There is an entire branch of mathematics devoted to queuing theory and the optimization of queue management.
Indeed there is. In fact, the person I shared an office with at NYU was doing her PhD thesis on queuing theory as it applied to a computer interconnection network.

The data necessary to drive optimization algorithms for checkpoint setup and staffing is certainly available to the TSA. ... I still vividly remember a class in queuing theory that I took years ago as an undergrad in engineering school. Fascinating stuff but it made my head hurt then (and now!).
As you may remember from that class, the behavior of a queue is heavily dependent on the distribution of arrival times. If you make reasonably-simple probabalistic models of those times, the math isn't that hard, but any simple models won't reflect reality. The closer the model reflects reality, the more complex the math. And it's made even more complicated by the non-uniform departure rate.

Indeed there is. In fact, the person I shared an office with at NYU was doing her PhD thesis on queuing theory as it applied to a computer interconnection network.


As you may remember from that class, the behavior of a queue is heavily dependent on the distribution of arrival times. If you make reasonably-simple probabalistic models of those times, the math isn't that hard, but any simple models won't reflect reality. The closer the model reflects reality, the more complex the math. And it's made even more complicated by the non-uniform departure rate.

More important with the CP, is that the queue varies based on the variability of the time to get through the queue. As passenger times begin to vary widely, particularly if there are outliers, like me and my NEXUS card at the TDC, that create statistical anomalies that make the math much more difficult. Add to that the tendency of all variability on the queue due to TSA inconsistency to move the time in queue up without corresponding variability down, as things get busier, the time per person likely increasws.

As you may remember from that class, the behavior of a queue is heavily dependent on the distribution of arrival times. If you make reasonably-simple probabalistic models of those times, the math isn't that hard, but any simple models won't reflect reality. The closer the model reflects reality, the more complex the math. And it's made even more complicated by the non-uniform departure rate.

More important with the CP, is that the queue varies based on the variability of the time to get through the queue. As passenger times begin to vary widely, particularly if there are outliers, like me and my NEXUS card at the TDC, that create statistical anomalies that make the math much more difficult. Add to that the tendency of all variability on the queue due to TSA inconsistency to move the time in queue up without corresponding variability down, as things get busier, the time per person likely increasws.
You do remember that you're dealing with an organization that - at the top level - decided that 3.4 (oz) was close enough to 3 (oz) that they couldn't be bothered to update the signs and the PA announcements, right? HQ staff who, at goalie points out regularly (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18864187-post58.html), can't add up how many items they found at checkpoints in a given week? Something tells me that math isn't their strong point. ;)

You do remember that you're dealing with an organization that - at the top level - decided that 3.4 (oz) was close enough to 3 (oz) that they couldn't be bothered to update the signs and the PA announcements, right? HQ staff who, at goalie points out regularly (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18864187-post58.html), can't add up how many items they found at checkpoints in a given week? Something tells me that math isn't their strong point. ;)

Strong is a relative term in this case. They are just as good at math as they are physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, psychoanalysis, phrenology, anatomy, English and physical education and quite a few other disciplines. In fact they are so equally prepared in many of these, it would be very difficult to actually determine which one at which they are the best.