Originally Posted by
JumboD
Which is why I'd even settle for an independent "rule arbiter" on hand at every airport to keep TSOs honest. This person would be appointed by GAO or another non-DHS body, have access to all permissible TSA search techniques and could be called when a pax cries foul. The TSA can tell the pax "oh, it says we can randomly change the rules" but if the rule arbiter says "no, that's specifically prohibited" then TSA must relent.
That way SSI may be kept just that but there will be an impartial body available to keep TSA in check.
It'll never happen, but I think in reality it satisfies the supposed need to keep the actual procedures secret.
It sounds good in principle but I can't imagine TSA going along with it with anything approaching willingness. TSA behaves like the only way to protect SSI (like it even needs protecting) is to make stuff up randomly. If the arbiter were to say "no, they don't have to say their name" then part of SSI (or the lack of it) is revealed. Plus, the arbiter would need immunity from "interfering" with the process, which TSA will see as a security risk. Otherwise, TSOs will be threatening the arbiters with arrest on a regular basis.