Originally Posted by
SFOSpiff
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.
This isn't about the TSA having to give up randomness, it's about individual screeners not being allowed to make up the rules on the spot. They'd also only be called if a pax challenged the TSO on whether they were allowed to do what they were trying to do. All this would really do is put someone credible in the position of saying "that's the way it is" or telling TSA to back off as opposed to the supervisory screeners looking out for their own. This could even include things the FSD has enacted for a particular locality as long as they've done so in writing and it's been approved by Washington. The arbiter doesn't need to actually read the rule, but merely be there to tell TSA they've gone too far. While the arbiter couldn't clear you through security w/o TSA giving the go ahead, they could provide a written statement essentially saying TSA violated the rules that one could then use in court if they chose.