shenxing

The problem remains that the DHS asserts that the rules themselves are both secret and ever changing. Without knowing what standards to hold the clerks to, it's impossible to know when you are being treated fairly.

jkhuggins

As a citizen, I have no duty to make sure that someone else does their job properly. I have a right to expect that performance, but I am not obligated to compel someone else to act in that manner.

I agree that, if insisting that screeners follow the rules escalates tensions, then the fault lies within TSA for that rise in tension. TSA's management faults have been described here ad nauseum. My statement that "the net effect of such requests will be, unfortunately, to escalate the tension" is a description of the way things are, not the way things ought to be.

The whole premise of this particular thread (a TSO asking "DYW2FT") already assumes a breakdown in TSA's procedures, since no TSO should ever ask that question. The OP asked for "best practices" in how to react in that situation; my response outlines (IMHO) the reality a passenger is likely to face, and two options the passenger has.

Of course, opinions here will differ. Your mileage may vary.

WillCAD

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You see, the whole premise upon which the United States and her system of government are based is that governmental authority flows exclusively from the consent of the governed. In plainer language, government only has authority which is given to it by the people. As such, the entire government is supposed to be our servant, and under our control at all times. When it escapes from our control, it can - and inevitably does - abuse those who it was created to serve.

Any boss, any supervisor, has a solemn obligation to manage their employees. The government is our employee, and we, as the boss, have a solemn obligation to BE the boss and not to allow the government to run a muck with the authority which WE granted it, abusing other people willy-nilly.

We created this monster, and it's our obligation as citizens to reign it in and stop it from hurting other people. If that means demanding that government employees stick to the rules, not violate the laws, and treat the people with the respect and deference with which any employee should treat their boss and their customers, then so be it.

jkhuggins

Much depends on how we view words like "obligation" and "duty" --- whether they exist in an actual sense, or a metaphorical sense.

If I have a "duty" to compel TSA employees to act in accordance with their own procedures, then I can be held liable for failing to perform that duty. Of course, that's preposterous; it's not my fault if TSA screws up.

On the other hand, of course, yes, there is a sense that government emerges from the consent of the governed. But one could just as easily argue that the proper route for correcting a government that fails to fulfill its obligation is through the ballot box, not through immediate action at a checkpoint.

But this is getting awfully esoteric and philosophical, and opinions will vary.

Again, back to something I said earlier: how one answers the original question depends on what one's objective is when approaching a checkpoint. Different objectives lead to different strategies.

TravelDoorsOut

This thread is awesome. Is there a list of rules/regulations that TSA MUST follow? Anything that we can print and just bring with us while we travel in-case question/issues arise? Like a cheat sheet.

jkhuggins

TSA will say "just read the TSA.GOV website". On the other hand, participants here have often reported that TSA employees at the checkpoint state that "the website is out of date" when a conflict occurs between the website and on-site procedures.

Public documents at TSA.GOV also say that a TSA screener can disallow any passenger's item, at any time, for any reason. At that point, it doesn't really matter what the rest of the documents say.

We are told that there are many private documents that describe all of the details of how a TSA checkpoint operates, in great detail. Of course, the general public is not allowed to view those documents, for "security reasons".

InkUnderNails

You can try this one.

China Clipper

Written by someone who really, really does not want to fly today

shenxing

How about this one.

saizai

There's mine, which is TSA specific. TTBOMK everything on it is still accurate.

I also have tl;dr cards for dealing with police.

IANAL, IANYL, TINLA. :P

saizai

I appreciate your support.

Sadly, this kind of thing is very much within my imagination.

The BOS incident was way over the top (and that kind of "take away a mute person's notepad because they used it to protest the illegality of the ongoing search" thing hasn't happened before or since), but the SFO incident about medical liquids is something I've had happen to me in numerous forms at airports throughout the country (and abroad).

In fact, it just happened to me again at BUD by their equivalent of TSA (and their police), about a bottle of iced tea that I had with me declared as medical liquid, despite presenting a signed letter from my neurologist saying that I have a medical need for juice, and that I cited EU law saying that medical liquids are allowed.

Note that this was while I was having visible symptoms (mutism, tremor), and I drank repeatedly from my bottles (which were clearly just plain juice / tea from the store).

Their TSA-equivalent manager even grabbed one of the papers I was using to write from me, crumpled it up, refused to return it, put it in a trash can, and when I went to get it back from the trash can, wheeled the can away.

I asked for the police, and asked to file a report for theft, destruction of property, and destruction of evidence. They refused to take a report.

The manager refused to give me his name or ID # (he even hid his badge) and refused to put in writing that he was confiscating my liquids as a condition of flying.

It was like the combo-pack of an even more power-tripping TSM Smith (aka "the big ahole on the SFO video who no longer works for the TSA for some reason") — with the whole collector's set of BS, claiming juice isn't, in his opinion, medical; I have to have a prescription for juice; I can choose one bottle or (psych!) none; a signed neurologist's note, on letterhead, with contact info isn't adequate; etc…

… and actual criminal conspiracy on top of that.

I'll have to escalate to EU-level regulators on that one…

Unfortunately, the Hungarian government is (from what I've heard) fairly corrupt, so I don't have high hopes for being able to obtain the necessary documentation, video, etc to even identify the people involved.

FWIW, I wouldn't want to be profiled like that. (No drug addiction — just don't want to be a public person.)

It seems like his success, as described, is just the obvious: be persistent, be specific, follow up.

He doesn't seem to have filed suits, given that he's gotten multi-month/year response delays.

I actually did sue when they did that to me. FOIA says 20 working days is the response deadline; if you don't get a response by then, you don't have to wait any longer or jump through any hoops to sue. And if you win, they have to pay for it.

We'll see how my current lawsuit goes, I guess. I'm actually working on another filing in it right now…

(TSA is pissed that I want to depose their FOIA officer about her sworn declaration which contains some vague and some outright false statements. I need no permission under the FRCP to depose someone in the first place, but they claim that it's somehow 'not related' to the suit, and asked for a blanket protective order from all discovery. )

I fully agree that it shouldn't, and that it is the duty of citizens (who have enough privilege to be able to) to insist on civil obedience.

However, as a plain fact, it does escalate the tension. They don't like being told to obey the law. Same as when cops get in your face when you say 'no' when they "ask" you if you mind whether they search your car.

Except, of course, they're not cops.

Yes, though a more narrow one: the rules require me to out myself as disabled, subjecting me to harassment and possible other harm if I were e.g. traveling with anti-disability-biased coworkers, in order to have my liquids screened.

The rules also prevent me from flying with, say, a gallon of shampoo if I want to.

The TSA has no right whatsoever to do either of those things. They only have the right to make a search that is:

My statements as to whether it is medical or not are irrelevant, and the existing rule violates my right to privacy.

The rule should be simple: <3oz, put it in a bag and no big deal. >3oz, put it in a separate bin and it'll get screened using the machines they have for that, and will take a minute or so extra. With no questions, justification, or intimidation whatsoever.

saizai

Citation & link, please.

jkhuggins

I overstated it a bit --- but only a bit.

Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Note that TSA is terribly vague about what "security concerns" (citation 1) or "traveler's security" (citation 2) means. A TSO can declare that some item in your possession presents a threat to security and deny you permission to carry that item through the checkpoint. And we've seen numerous examples of precisely that, reported here ad nauseum.

Carl Johnson

When you put anything into the "can I bring" on the TSA website, you get this:

"The final decision rests with TSA on whether to allow any items on the plane."

And he misinterpreted that to mean that any individual clerk can make any arbitrary decision he wants.

jkhuggins

Or, any individual screener can arbitrarily declare that the item in question is a "threat to security" (whether it is or not), and thereby prohibit the item.

There's a small semantic difference between the two --- but, practically, there's no difference. We all pass through the checkpoint with our possessions intact at the whim of the TSOs conducting the screening.

Not convinced? Notice that there's no description anywhere about a passenger's right to challenge the TSO's determination. The decision of the TSO is final. End of story.