TSA Supervisor @ SEA "You cannot refuse" AIT...
Jan 8, 2016, 4:27 pm
#61
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
Wow, that was a lot of remarkably good conversation. Digging in…
Of course! Captions on #3 are still pending, should be done soon.
If I just wanted to get out of it, rather than to also exercise my 4th Amendment rights, then yes, that's what I should have done.
But I don't believe that disabilities make me have any less volition. I'm not able or willing to go through AIT. Why should I be unable to opt out by choice, in addition to by inability?
I have a pretty hard line policy of not disclosing any medical info to people who have no business knowing it, let alone TSA goons. I've gone down that road before, and it turned out badly each time. I have zero interest in letting them get even a whiff of idea that they have any right to evaluate my medical state.
There was only one question I refused to answer at first, which is whether my boots are removable or not. And I refused that because it's premised on a wrong assumption, i.e. that disability is all or nothing. It's a pain to remove my boots, and not necessary for screening, so I said what was relevant — that I wanted them to screen me with my boots on. That's happened plenty of times before, and they could have done it then too; they simply refused.
It is a "no" — no, I am not going through AIT, for two distinct reasons, both of which are valid and both of which I want to assert.
From of Deaf POV (don't know if you're late/early or raised oralist): suppose someone said that you have to speak your name to go through security, unless you're unable to do so. Very few Deaf people are actually mute, but many are extremely uncomfortable about using their voice.
Do you have to choose between (a) refusing because you're unable (or it's difficult, or embarrassing, or whatever), and maybe exaggerating that (playing into the "deaf-mute" stereotype), and (b) refusing because it's a stupid and unconstitutional imposition? Hell no. Both are legitimate reasons to (literally) stay silent.
I was well aware of that, and was prepared to stay some time in Seattle if getting through security without AIT required a court order.
It may be helpful to read my manifesto on civil obedience to understand my POV on this. If I am threatened with unlawful use of power, that's going to make me much more likely to resist, not less. I simply have no tolerance for such abuse. I would rather sue and get it slapped down after a fight than have more convenience at the cost of getting my rights violated.
Mind, I have no quarrel with people who just want to get through their day and are willing to give up rights to do so. I can very much understand that. And frankly there are a lot of people for whom the inconvenience is really problematic. To put it as Popehat did, I have the privilege to shut up — and to sue when they won't take no for an answer. I'm acutely aware that not everyone does.
I hope that my being very vigorous about asserting my rights makes it easier for others to have that be the expected base line.
That would be a lie.
I am able to stand; my legs aren't broken, just weak. I use walking sticks due to fatigue, and a guide cane due to extreme light sensitivity. Standing with my hands held above my head for several seconds, with no support, is painful and tiring.
Could I do so if I absolutely had to? Probably yes. I could also probably run up a flight of stairs if it meant getting away from a fire, but I'd have a painful episode afterwards if I did.
Disability is not a binary (as you surely know).
I tried the Congressional route, and the formal administrative complaint route too. It got nothing done at all. So now I just sue instead. That seems to have much more potential for making a real change. Maybe it'll also make them more responsive to the nicer approaches.
Which, incidentally, is roughly what TSA says in its own documents about training BDOs to not discriminate on the basis of race / religion. (I'll be posting about 700 pages of documents soon, in an article I'm writing for BoingBoing, and you can read 'em for yourself.)
Amen. Explanation implies that it's somehow up for debate or judgment on their part. It isn't.
I was refusing. And unable. I can do both.
Great way of putting it.
That was actually going to be my next question to the TSM, but he was backing down, so I didn't.
I hadn't, and you're right. Interesting point.
On that I actually disagree. I think everyone should get the same treatment, and not have to say that they even have a medical issue.
As one obvious example: medical liquids. Who gives a damn if you want to take a gallon of shampoo, five fresh-baked and gooey apple pies, and a snowglobe with you? It ain't a bomb. You shouldn't have to explain yourself.
The only exception I can think of is for things that are actually for-real dangerous, like canisters of compressed oxygen. For that, FAA regs already say you have to notify in advance, and I think that sort of medical exception (and requirement for disclosure) is perfectly reasonable.
Everything else? Hell no.
They definitely do say that. Obviously they've never met a hacker. Here's a fundamental truth: security through obscurity, isn't.
Frankly, that's true. Someone might well be "faking it", and do so better than me. Provide a fancy looking note and everything. If that possibility is a problem, they're doing it wrong. My point is that it should not matter whether or not someone is faking it — and therefore you shouldn't be asked in the first place.
Any chance I could get a document about that, or a reference to one?
Me too. ^
Read carefully. The quote is:
Note that it does not say that SSSS is sufficient or necessary to imply mandatory AIT.
And in court, both with me and Corbett, TSA has refused to say what its new criteria are.
That's what matters. What they say in the media is PR BS worth nothing.
The judge in EPIC v DHS found a way to not rock the boat even when ruling that they didn't obey the APA rulemaking process. (And twice again in four years since then — In re EPIC & In re CEI.)
The trick is catching them in a provable outright lie, since they get a lot of leeway to just suppress evidence as "SSI" at whim.
Frankly, I think that's a fairly likely response. It would be hard for me to prove that the AIT mandate that I was subjected to is due to their secret order, especially with no access to their documents.
On the other hand, they refused to do that re my SFO experience — at least not in any way I could enforce. (They did so within two days on TV, but have still not given me a legal document I can rely on. And now they seem to be planning on appealing the court's order that they cough it up. I'll know by Jan. 22 at least.)
So it's also quite likely that they won't go for either. E.g. most likely to me is that they'll say that in fact I wasn't being required to go through AIT at all, either because I somehow misunderstood the STSO, or because his word didn't matter 'cause the TSM overruled him.
It's about to be.
Also, I said that I can't. (Or at least, that it would be difficult for me to do so.)
Of course! Captions on #3 are still pending, should be done soon.
If I just wanted to get out of it, rather than to also exercise my 4th Amendment rights, then yes, that's what I should have done.
But I don't believe that disabilities make me have any less volition. I'm not able or willing to go through AIT. Why should I be unable to opt out by choice, in addition to by inability?
I have a pretty hard line policy of not disclosing any medical info to people who have no business knowing it, let alone TSA goons. I've gone down that road before, and it turned out badly each time. I have zero interest in letting them get even a whiff of idea that they have any right to evaluate my medical state.
There was only one question I refused to answer at first, which is whether my boots are removable or not. And I refused that because it's premised on a wrong assumption, i.e. that disability is all or nothing. It's a pain to remove my boots, and not necessary for screening, so I said what was relevant — that I wanted them to screen me with my boots on. That's happened plenty of times before, and they could have done it then too; they simply refused.
It is a "no" — no, I am not going through AIT, for two distinct reasons, both of which are valid and both of which I want to assert.
From of Deaf POV (don't know if you're late/early or raised oralist): suppose someone said that you have to speak your name to go through security, unless you're unable to do so. Very few Deaf people are actually mute, but many are extremely uncomfortable about using their voice.
Do you have to choose between (a) refusing because you're unable (or it's difficult, or embarrassing, or whatever), and maybe exaggerating that (playing into the "deaf-mute" stereotype), and (b) refusing because it's a stupid and unconstitutional imposition? Hell no. Both are legitimate reasons to (literally) stay silent.
I was well aware of that, and was prepared to stay some time in Seattle if getting through security without AIT required a court order.
It may be helpful to read my manifesto on civil obedience to understand my POV on this. If I am threatened with unlawful use of power, that's going to make me much more likely to resist, not less. I simply have no tolerance for such abuse. I would rather sue and get it slapped down after a fight than have more convenience at the cost of getting my rights violated.
Mind, I have no quarrel with people who just want to get through their day and are willing to give up rights to do so. I can very much understand that. And frankly there are a lot of people for whom the inconvenience is really problematic. To put it as Popehat did, I have the privilege to shut up — and to sue when they won't take no for an answer. I'm acutely aware that not everyone does.
I hope that my being very vigorous about asserting my rights makes it easier for others to have that be the expected base line.
That would be a lie.
I am able to stand; my legs aren't broken, just weak. I use walking sticks due to fatigue, and a guide cane due to extreme light sensitivity. Standing with my hands held above my head for several seconds, with no support, is painful and tiring.
Could I do so if I absolutely had to? Probably yes. I could also probably run up a flight of stairs if it meant getting away from a fire, but I'd have a painful episode afterwards if I did.
Disability is not a binary (as you surely know).
I tried the Congressional route, and the formal administrative complaint route too. It got nothing done at all. So now I just sue instead. That seems to have much more potential for making a real change. Maybe it'll also make them more responsive to the nicer approaches.
Which, incidentally, is roughly what TSA says in its own documents about training BDOs to not discriminate on the basis of race / religion. (I'll be posting about 700 pages of documents soon, in an article I'm writing for BoingBoing, and you can read 'em for yourself.)
Amen. Explanation implies that it's somehow up for debate or judgment on their part. It isn't.
I was refusing. And unable. I can do both.
Great way of putting it.
That was actually going to be my next question to the TSM, but he was backing down, so I didn't.
I hadn't, and you're right. Interesting point.
On that I actually disagree. I think everyone should get the same treatment, and not have to say that they even have a medical issue.
As one obvious example: medical liquids. Who gives a damn if you want to take a gallon of shampoo, five fresh-baked and gooey apple pies, and a snowglobe with you? It ain't a bomb. You shouldn't have to explain yourself.
The only exception I can think of is for things that are actually for-real dangerous, like canisters of compressed oxygen. For that, FAA regs already say you have to notify in advance, and I think that sort of medical exception (and requirement for disclosure) is perfectly reasonable.
Everything else? Hell no.
They definitely do say that. Obviously they've never met a hacker. Here's a fundamental truth: security through obscurity, isn't.
Frankly, that's true. Someone might well be "faking it", and do so better than me. Provide a fancy looking note and everything. If that possibility is a problem, they're doing it wrong. My point is that it should not matter whether or not someone is faking it — and therefore you shouldn't be asked in the first place.
Any chance I could get a document about that, or a reference to one?
Me too. ^
Read carefully. The quote is:
Note that it does not say that SSSS is sufficient or necessary to imply mandatory AIT.
And in court, both with me and Corbett, TSA has refused to say what its new criteria are.
That's what matters. What they say in the media is PR BS worth nothing.
The judge in EPIC v DHS found a way to not rock the boat even when ruling that they didn't obey the APA rulemaking process. (And twice again in four years since then — In re EPIC & In re CEI.)
The trick is catching them in a provable outright lie, since they get a lot of leeway to just suppress evidence as "SSI" at whim.
Frankly, I think that's a fairly likely response. It would be hard for me to prove that the AIT mandate that I was subjected to is due to their secret order, especially with no access to their documents.
On the other hand, they refused to do that re my SFO experience — at least not in any way I could enforce. (They did so within two days on TV, but have still not given me a legal document I can rely on. And now they seem to be planning on appealing the court's order that they cough it up. I'll know by Jan. 22 at least.)
So it's also quite likely that they won't go for either. E.g. most likely to me is that they'll say that in fact I wasn't being required to go through AIT at all, either because I somehow misunderstood the STSO, or because his word didn't matter 'cause the TSM overruled him.
It's about to be.
Also, I said that I can't. (Or at least, that it would be difficult for me to do so.)
Last edited by tanja; Jan 8, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Jan 8, 2016, 5:19 pm
#62
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ONT/FRA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 878
Jan 8, 2016, 5:48 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
Jan 8, 2016, 6:14 pm
#64
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
Jan 8, 2016, 6:16 pm
#65
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
Sadly I do belive that. But would they do that a person who is not US citizent? I think maybe but dont know for sure.Plus would the airline give you a new ticket? Or is lost/gone?
Last edited by tanja; Jan 8, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Jan 8, 2016, 7:29 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
I think TSA is only concerned with using its power to screw with people, citizen or not. Missed flights will depend on the airline, type ticket, if the passenger has some type of status or notoriety. Otherwise good luck.
Jan 17, 2016, 7:06 pm
#67
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Just filed Rehab Act (etc) & FTCA claim about this.
Will be in court soon anyway in my 49 USC 46110 suit.
Will be in court soon anyway in my 49 USC 46110 suit.
Jan 17, 2016, 8:05 pm
#68
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: Pre✓, Delta DM, Hilton LT Diamond, Mariott Plat, PC Gold, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,655
My God. What is so hard about saying "I'm opting out." or simply "yes" to the question "So you're opting out?" You really made this much more difficult than necessary.
I'm with you on your refusal to identify your medical liquids based on HIPPA.
His name is sufficient. You do not need a badge or personnel ID number [ATI Mandatory RAW 3 @ 5:35]. For him to provide it, or to allow you to take a picture of it would be a violation of Op-SEC. Not to mention, that you videotaped the entire encounter. You have more than enough - and I hesitate to use the word - "evidence" to plead your case whatever that is.
Anyway, good luck with your case. Subscribed.
I also suggest you re-read this post.
I'm with you on your refusal to identify your medical liquids based on HIPPA.
His name is sufficient. You do not need a badge or personnel ID number [ATI Mandatory RAW 3 @ 5:35]. For him to provide it, or to allow you to take a picture of it would be a violation of Op-SEC. Not to mention, that you videotaped the entire encounter. You have more than enough - and I hesitate to use the word - "evidence" to plead your case whatever that is.
Anyway, good luck with your case. Subscribed.
I switched from voluntarily opting out to declaring myself medically ineligible a few years ago. When voluntarily opting out, I got retaliatory screening a good percentage of the time; with medical ineligible it's been never.
I have, however, had a few instances where the individual either didn't know the policy or thought I was opting out. "So you're opting out" has been restated to me to which I reply with a simple "no, I'm not opting out, I'm medically ineligible". Sometimes that goes back/forth a few times until I tell them if they don't understand the difference get a supervisor who does and can then re-train them. When they don't know the policy they look at me like I've got two heads until they get clarification from a supervisor who usually does know the policy. I one had a case where the individual literally demanded that I tell her precisely why I was medically ineligible. I just smiled and asked if she was my personal physician? No? HIPAA laws, now go get your supervisor. Amazingly the supervisor actually apologized to me after that encounter and said he'd make sure she was re-read on the policy.
I have, however, had a few instances where the individual either didn't know the policy or thought I was opting out. "So you're opting out" has been restated to me to which I reply with a simple "no, I'm not opting out, I'm medically ineligible". Sometimes that goes back/forth a few times until I tell them if they don't understand the difference get a supervisor who does and can then re-train them. When they don't know the policy they look at me like I've got two heads until they get clarification from a supervisor who usually does know the policy. I one had a case where the individual literally demanded that I tell her precisely why I was medically ineligible. I just smiled and asked if she was my personal physician? No? HIPAA laws, now go get your supervisor. Amazingly the supervisor actually apologized to me after that encounter and said he'd make sure she was re-read on the policy.
Jan 17, 2016, 8:51 pm
#69
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Anyway, good luck with your case.
I also suggest you re-read this post.
I do not want to, and am not required to, give up my right to refuse because I have a disability. I believe in vigorously asserting my civil rights. Doing so personally gives me standing to do so in court, effectively on behalf of everyone.
Again: I am not interested in making things merely easier for myself. I'm interested in vindicating the civil rights of all. I will take inconvenience, evidence of abuse, and standing to sue for permanent injunction over more convenience and giving up of rights.
Jan 17, 2016, 9:26 pm
#70
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: Pre✓, Delta DM, Hilton LT Diamond, Mariott Plat, PC Gold, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,655
I did. What about it?
I do not want to, and am not required to, give up my right to refuse because I have a disability. I believe in vigorously asserting my civil rights. Doing so personally gives me standing to do so in court, effectively on behalf of everyone.
Again: I am not interested in making things merely easier for myself. I'm interested in vindicating the civil rights of all. I will take inconvenience, evidence of abuse, and standing to sue for permanent injunction over more convenience and giving up of rights.
I do not want to, and am not required to, give up my right to refuse because I have a disability. I believe in vigorously asserting my civil rights. Doing so personally gives me standing to do so in court, effectively on behalf of everyone.
Again: I am not interested in making things merely easier for myself. I'm interested in vindicating the civil rights of all. I will take inconvenience, evidence of abuse, and standing to sue for permanent injunction over more convenience and giving up of rights.
As to your case. I skimmed your complaint and FTCA demand letter. IMHO Your demands amount to extortion. $400K ?! Really? On what grounds did you arrive at that figure?
File the lawsuit and plead your case in court. I'm sure your lawyer(s) will love you for it. You should spend more time understanding the nature of the search and less time researching your rights against it.
In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”
U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...1232135AATg01e
U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...1232135AATg01e
Jan 17, 2016, 9:41 pm
#71
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
It's not actual damages, it's statutory and constitutional. That necessarily involves both e.g. stress to me (aka "emotional distress") and amount required to have a deterrent effect. The TSA has an annual budget of ~$7.3 billion. I asked for much less than a rounding error.
You should spend more time understanding the nature of the search and less time researching your rights against it.
Davis, Aukai, Fofana, & Bierfeldt are good law. I don't have a problem with them. AIT screening is far more intrusive and extensive than necessary to detect the presence of weapons or explosives. Therefore, it is illegal. That's the short version of the argument.
PS Yahoo Answers is not exactly a proper reference. Have you read the opinions from those cases? I have.
Jan 17, 2016, 10:02 pm
#72
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: Pre✓, Delta DM, Hilton LT Diamond, Mariott Plat, PC Gold, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,655
Thanks for clarifying how and why you arrived at that figure.
Yahoo was just a cross reference. The actual reference was U.S. vs Davis. No I haven't read the opinions. Bully for you.
I'm no fan of the technology either and always Opt-out when presented with the choice. However, I do understand the need for thorough screening. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we've got ...
Again, I'll be following your case.
Yahoo was just a cross reference. The actual reference was U.S. vs Davis. No I haven't read the opinions. Bully for you.
I'm no fan of the technology either and always Opt-out when presented with the choice. However, I do understand the need for thorough screening. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we've got ...
Again, I'll be following your case.
Jan 17, 2016, 10:17 pm
#73
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
I encourage you to do so. Here they are:
Davis
Aukai
Fofana
Bierfeldt (settlement)
I ain't asking for perfection. Just asking to be free from overly intrusive and invasive searches. AIT has no actual beneficial effect for security.
(Not to mention that even if there were another 9/11 every single year, you would still be more likely to die in your bathtub. As it is, babies kill more US civilians than terrorists do. Using guns.)
Hope it's valuable to you, or at least entertaining.
Davis
Aukai
Fofana
Bierfeldt (settlement)
However, I do understand the need for thorough screening. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we've got ...
(Not to mention that even if there were another 9/11 every single year, you would still be more likely to die in your bathtub. As it is, babies kill more US civilians than terrorists do. Using guns.)
Again, I'll be following your case.
Jan 18, 2016, 7:35 am
#74
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
Thanks for clarifying how and why you arrived at that figure.
Yahoo was just a cross reference. The actual reference was U.S. vs Davis. No I haven't read the opinions. Bully for you.
I'm no fan of the technology either and always Opt-out when presented with the choice. However, I do understand the need for thorough screening. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we've got ...
Again, I'll be following your case.
Yahoo was just a cross reference. The actual reference was U.S. vs Davis. No I haven't read the opinions. Bully for you.
I'm no fan of the technology either and always Opt-out when presented with the choice. However, I do understand the need for thorough screening. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we've got ...
Again, I'll be following your case.
Jan 18, 2016, 7:41 am
#75
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: Pre✓, Delta DM, Hilton LT Diamond, Mariott Plat, PC Gold, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,655
I haven't run into "Mandatory" Nude-o-Scope screening. I have pre-check and rarely get selected for "Random Screening" when the occasion does arise and I'm directed to the scope I opt out at that time. That's the choice I was referring to.