IceTrojan

Hello fellow travelers,

It's been quite a while since I've had my last DYW2FT moment, but I wanted to update myself and others on the "best practices" in combating such a scenario when fully exercising my freedom to travel without actually violating actual law. Hopefully this thread will serve as a repository of such best practices.

While I'm sure we should still immediately call for a supervisor, do we include retorts such as, "You can't prevent me from flying?" Anything more effective? Tips from the pros?

Let it be known, I'm all for pushing back against TSA insanity.

Spiff

"Are you offering to be my chauffeur?"

Yoshi212

When dealing with any Gov't officer or agent of a Gov't that is abusing their power or violating my rights I respond with, "Is this worth your pension?"

Oh the faces I get in response are priceless.

OverThereTooMuch

You could politely inform the rep that you're not required to do whatever they are requesting and make sure they get the information/training that's needed by escalating within the airport (or potentially beyond) until you get a satisfactory resolution.

Or you could be a douche. Either way I guess.

Guess it's no surprise that a few TSA agents aren't all that friendly, after the grief they put up with when they're just trying to do their jobs.

Spiff

It's not a binary choice.

"Douche" more accurately describes anyone who says "Do You Want to Fly Today?".

Their "jobs" as you so quaintly put it, consist of harassing passengers and enforcing a set of criminally stupid rules. If grief for doing so is all they get, they should consider themselves lucky.

"I was only doing my job." - proven to not hold water.

FredAnderssen

You mean jobs like this one?:

Man harassed, detained by TSA at Boston Logan

Hyperacusis

Isn't the person mentioned in the above article an FTer?

petaluma1

Yes.

jkhuggins

My observation, as someone who reads this forum regularly, is that there's little consensus as to what "best practices" are --- because different people transiting a checkpoint have different objectives and different priorities.

Much depends on what you mean by "fully exercising my freedom to travel".

Plenty of folks here will advocate the deliberate use of any and every TSA published policy in order to make life uncomfortable or inconvenient for the TSOs performing the screening: opting out of the AIT scanners, requesting a change in gloves and sample equipment before a pat down is performed, insisting that one's personal belongs remain in sight at all times, insisting on the proper use of clinical language to describe the parts of one's body, and so on. You have every right to request any and all of those procedures. And the net effect of such requests will be, unfortunately, to escalate the tension inherent in the screening process, which will eventually require the presence of superior authorities.
For some here, that's precisely the objective: to register a public protest against the TSA by being a royal PITA while staying within the letter of the law and TSA's rules.

Someone with that objective, when confronted with "DYW2FT", might be likely to respond with a clever retort, as a full exercise of your First Amendment rights to freedom of expression, hoping to goad the screener into a retaliatory retort that violates TSA's own standards of conduct. The downside of playing that game, of course, is that you can be accused of being "uncooperative with the screening process": a charge that, while notoriously vague, will give TSA the means to deny you transit through the checkpoint. Almost certainly a supervisor will be summoned; your chances of prevailing with the supervisor are essentially random.

In short: just like the person who pays their property taxes in person with several sacks of pennies and demands a receipt, you have a constitutional right to be a PITA as a means of social protest.

Or, your objective might simply be to transit the checkpoint as quickly as possible, while not forfeiting any of your rights in the process. If that's your objective, then the best response to "DYW2FT" would be a simple, respectful response: "Yes. May I please speak with your supervisor?" Any further dialogue with the screener, who has already implicitly threatened your right to travel, is unlikely to result in a resolution; you're better off proceeding immediately to the authority who can resolve the matter.

There's an old proverb: "Never try to teach a pig to dance; it frustrates you and annoys the pig."

So, the question becomes: what's your objective in transiting the checkpoint? What are your priorities in doing so? Answering those questions will determine what tactics you should use.

Me? I'm a sheeple. I don't opt-out of the AIT, I minimize any dialogue with the TSOs on duty, and I state my name if requested. I'm fortunate enough to not have any special needs or conditions to challenge the TSOs, and my physical appearance is terribly ordinary. My objective is to get through the checkpoint quickly, and I achieve that objective. Others have different personal challenges and different objectives and will make different choices as a result. I respect those choices.

shenxing

For many of us on this board, I believe the objective is to transit the checkpoint while maintaining the maximum amount of dignity. Complying with petty demands from government officials, letting them look at naked pictures of you, and being barked are not compatible with this so we must assert ourselves.

IceTrojan

My goal here would be to arm folks with all the REAL information available, as to what TSA can/can't do, and what pax can/can't do. Whether they choose to utilize that info is up to them, just as long as they are informed.

saizai

That would be me.

I'm currently suing the TSA for FOIA/PA violations.

Later on I'll be suing them for the above-quoted civil rights violations (among others).

In the meantime they're over a year late in issuing their response to my formal Rehabilitation Act grievances, which is why it's part of my FOIA/PA lawsuit…

YuropFlyer

Wow, that's just.. incredible!

Sorry about all the trouble you had Sai

I've fortunately not (and most probably never will) to do with the TSA so far, but I've had my fair share of rude and stupid "security" in airports.. but what happened to you is beyond imagination.

shenxing

Sai, this article might be of interest to you. Here's how a pro does FOIA
https://medium.com/matter/the-secret...s-1f693eaf609a

Carl Johnson

Why will it escalate the tension? Insisting that the clerks follow the rules - how is that going to escalate any kind of tension? Why aren't they following the rules in the first place? Making the clerk change gloves - they should know to do that, because it helps reduce cross-contamination. Insisting that one's personal belongings remain in sight at all times helps keep them from being stolen.

It's one's duty as a citizen to make sure the clerks follow the rules of their jobs. If this escalates tensions, it's because clerks aren't fired for failing to follow the rules.

You just have a different understanding of the responsibilities of a citizen than I do, I guess. I believe citizens have a duty to worry about passengers following them who may need the clerks to follow the rules. I guess some people worry more about clerks who may be upset or burdened if they are required to follow the rules of their jobs.

Their jobs do not actually consist of harassing passengers. A large, large, part of the problem is that they don't follow the rules. You are right that the rules are criminally stupid, but how much easier would things be if the clerks followed the rules as laid down? Would Sai have had any reason for complaint if the clerks had followed the rules? Would Stacey Armato have had any problems? Would it have been possible to play the NEXUS game if the clerks had followed the rules stating that they are supposed to know their jobs?

How bad would things be if the clerks learned the things they're supposed to learn, looked only for WEI, put medical liquids through the way they're supposed to, used their indoor voices, and otherwise acted in a competent and professional manner? Still bad, primarily because of the NOSs, but much more tolerable. If clerks started getting fired for not knowing or following the rules, things would be much better even if the rules continued to remain criminally stupid.