TSA Transportation Security Searches directive - 2012 vs 2009 diffs
Aug 20, 2015, 2:48 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
TSA Transportation Security Searches directive - 2012 vs 2009 diffs
Here's a partial diff of the TSA's Transportation Security Searches directive (2012 vs 2009), from my FOIA.
First 4 pages of original doc here.
Notice some interesting things they changed?
First 4 pages of original doc here.
Notice some interesting things they changed?
Aug 20, 2015, 4:27 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
I find this addition rather interesting:
During a search, it may be necessary to read textual materials, for example, any written material or other media that may provide information about potential threats. Searches may properly include the reading of textual materials if necessary to rule out the presence of a threat.
Aug 20, 2015, 4:33 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
[QUOTE=ND Sol;25302430]I find this addition rather interesting:[/QUOTE
Hm. Guess that explains why "they' get so pissed of with me. I dont have a cell or a laptop. I dont need it. I have computers in 2 countries. Cell . No I dont need it.
Hm. Guess that explains why "they' get so pissed of with me. I dont have a cell or a laptop. I dont need it. I have computers in 2 countries. Cell . No I dont need it.
Aug 20, 2015, 8:17 pm
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
This just makes it tempting to carry something in a language TSA can't read without ridiculous effort. Basque or Maori, for example. A cookbook, perhaps. Or maybe a textbook. On ethics.
Aug 21, 2015, 4:38 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,157
Aug 21, 2015, 7:21 am
#9
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I find this addition rather interesting:
During a search, it may be necessary to read textual materials, for example, any written material or other media that may provide information about potential threats. Searches may properly include the reading of textual materials if necessary to rule out the presence of a threat.
Who determines what material is undesirable? Will the TSA publish a list of such "undesirable material"?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...YMspgEK6w/edit
Aug 21, 2015, 8:01 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Definitions: Additional Screening: Secondary screening conducted to detect potential threats or risks or any particular substance, attribute, person, or undesirable material.
Who determines what material is undesirable? Will the TSA publish a list of such "undesirable material"?
Who determines what material is undesirable? Will the TSA publish a list of such "undesirable material"?
The relevant bits from the current version are "prohibited items" and "threat items".
Aug 21, 2015, 1:55 pm
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
The use of those two phrases renders the "threat item" part open for abuse. So, no surprises there then.
Aug 21, 2015, 1:57 pm
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Aug 21, 2015, 4:21 pm
#13
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Aug 21, 2015, 4:45 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,157
Definitions: Additional Screening: Secondary screening conducted to detect potential threats or risks or any particular substance, attribute, person, or <b>undesirable material.</b>
Who determines what material is undesirable? Will the TSA publish a list of such "undesirable material"?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...YMspgEK6w/edit
Who determines what material is undesirable? Will the TSA publish a list of such "undesirable material"?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...YMspgEK6w/edit
All search operations must be conducted without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability except as directed by the Federal Security Director (FSD) or Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC) and provided such direction is based on specific intelligence threat information.
Behavior Detection Officers CBDOs): Specially-trained TSA personnel and TSA contract personnel who execute TSA's Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT) Program.
Screening: A search or appraisal of a person, place, document or thing, with or without assisting technologies, to determine compliance with TSA standards, regulations and applicable laws and to detect a threat. Not all screening activities are searches under the Fourth Amendment (e.g. BDO observations).
Search: An examination or inspection conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment of a person's body, property, conveyance, or other area where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Special Needs Search: A search conducted without a warrant and in furtherance of a special governmental need, beyond the ordinary needs of law enforcement. In the context of transportation security, special needs searches are designed to mitigate the risk to the public posed by the introduction of threats into the transportation system.
During a search, it may be necessary to read textual materials, for example, any written material or other media that may provide information about potential threats. Searches may properly include the reading of textual materials if necessary to rule out the presence of a threat.
Aug 22, 2015, 4:54 am
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
I added the strikethrough to the red bits to make it clearer. Anyway, you can read the original version instead of my diff; it's linked.
Yup! According to them, at least. Maybe not so much according to the Constitution, but when has that stopped them? 
Evidently. It didn't give any more info on that one.
Well, just looking at things in plain sight isn't a search or seizure. That part is actually true.
However, interrogating someone in order to try to find evidence of a crime… that's another matter altogether.
"Appraisal" isn't further defined. I think it just means the SPOT checklist.
I think you read this one wrong. It's about where is being searched, not where the search is conducted.
Subject to court precedent on what constitutes a "reasonable" "administrative search".
They don't need to use the term "administrative". It's necessarily administrative, since they aren't authorized to engage in law enforcement searches.
The question would be whether such search is "reasonable", and whether you can take your stuff and leave, stopping the search, after they start reading through your things.
I think the court answers to both are going to be "mostly no". But see the Arabic flashcards case for counterpoint on the first.
Huh??? We have contractor SPOTNiks?
So, SPOTNiks exempted themselves from the 4th Amendment. And, what is an "appraisal?"
However, interrogating someone in order to try to find evidence of a crime… that's another matter altogether.
"Appraisal" isn't further defined. I think it just means the SPOT checklist.
So, a private room groping is a 4th Amendment search but a public groping is not?
So, since they're calling it a "search," that means we have our 4th Amendment protections, including the right of non-consent.
I read into this that this is a 4th Amendment search, since they didn't use the term "administrative." I would say that non-consent applies.
The question would be whether such search is "reasonable", and whether you can take your stuff and leave, stopping the search, after they start reading through your things.
I think the court answers to both are going to be "mostly no". But see the Arabic flashcards case for counterpoint on the first.
